Trump policy capping NIH indirect costs at 15% will cripple biomedical research

Wow ....... a corporation generates a return for it's investors and provides some very good jobs for Americans? That's just abhorrent.

I hope you know that all of these NIH grants are simply added to the ever growing US debt ... which I believe is $90K per US citizen.

I think the NIH funding system is a positive but it's a fallacy to think the system and research universities can't operate more efficiently.

 

I had a good conversation with a cancer researcher at UF who told me the University would have to absorb 64 million in order for the research to continue. He was visibly frustrated since they had worked so hard to make UF one of the top cancer research facilities in the country.
Designation from the National Cancer Institute: A Milestone for North Central Florida » Designation from the National Cancer Institute » Cancer Center » UF Health Cancer Center » University of Florida

 

My point is .... every NIH Grant $ is another $ added to the national debt since the DC swamp (not "The Swamp" on University Ave) deems it appropriate to operate with a deficit (and both sides are at fault). Ergo, any NHI grant $ savings is a $ less national debt, which is a "good thang".

I don't expect academic research institutions will ever be as efficient, operating wise, as the private sector as there's not much incentive for the university unit to be so. Maybe the "cutting" of some of the bureaucratic overhead ... ie fat .... out of the grants will drive/force some cost efficiencies thereby resulting in mo' $$ for actual direct research activity.

One can hope.

 

Did they ever find a cure for cancer ?

 

Yep, and guess China is going to have to fund our pharmaceutical industry research from now on. J/k..

I think this should be case by case investments into medical research. But I question taxpayer funded research if the pharmaceutical industry is making all the profit on it.

 

And for the record my experience is in human clinical trials.

As far a bench research I have no idea other than any academic center seems to have multiple layers of people who must approve everything.

 

They already do, do you have any clue how much money they spent developing molecules to treat alzheimer’s?

I can’t even count how many failed trials they ran before they had a success. Literally decades and billions.
Their current prevention trial is going to cost them over 400 million before it’s all said and done and it may fail because of the study design.

 

They will not watch it. But here is an evidence based MD who I don’t agree with on many issues. That said he is evidence based and knows academia!

He even admits it would probably be better to do this slower but at the same time there actually might be value to the shock and awe approach…

Fascinating watch on this exact issue!

 

As Dr. Prasad says…the good scientists are getting crushed everyday by wasted money that should be going to ideas and projects they have.

The OP is blinded by the academic waste propaganda.

 

First its hard to take someone serious when they lead off a podcast/YouTube with Trump derangement syndrome.

it’s not hard in this world of social media to find a few people who agree with an unpopular opinion. I’ve worked on higher ed my entire career. And I gotta tell you 90% of what he said is total crap. He yapped for all that time about unscrupulous things that have happened with idc and then hedged by saying that’s not normal but it could happen - he’s exaggerating ridiculously. Like he’s playing on your outrage.

then he fails to explain that idc is negotiated. Meaning yes they will take a lower idc from gates foundation, but only because they can offset that with higher idc from other groups.

he then makes up some argument about admin bloat offering no evidence when most admin is NOT funded by idc unless those people support grants or research.

then he says all grants should be direct costs because it’s easier to monitor and sure - but guess what he didn’t say… what if you applied for a grant and want to change your spending… it’s a huge pain in the ass and a lot of paperwork to change your spending. The opposite of efficiency.

also his argument about how nih is inefficient in coming up with cures is ridiculous and the economic benefit of nih is outrageous. He’s just making shit up.

so in all - you’re not being educated by this guy he’s just wasting your time.

 

Eh…Prasad is far more liberal than me. But he is honest. Someone you can listen to and learn from. But go pay for your colonoscopy if you wish. Even if there are cheaper ways with equivalent/better outcomes. Off topic but used to make a point. (The other doctor is certainly left leaning if you care but a good listen as well).

 

I want to be clear - there is nothing stupid about Prasad. He's a smart man - and like many many many smart researchers like himself, he thinks he knows everything. I've met 100 guys just like this who think they have some inside scoop on how administration works at universities.

He doesn't know everything - especially about admin. I have good friends on the ground working in this space - and although most agree universities could survive with lower IDC rates, none of them, and I mean even the trump supporting ones, think that 15% is reasonable. They would like to see a fixed rate, with less negotiating, because it makes it easier for universities to plan and budget, but to a man, everyone I have talked to doesn't know what Trump is thinking.

But this idea that universities are gobbling up IDC just to hire administrators that no one wants is just frankly untrue in the vast majority of cases. But even if they were, most faculty are actually BEGGING to hire more administrators because it means less administrative work for faculty. It's one of the biggest advantages of large institutions like UF that we have access to administrative professionals so that faculty don't have to book their own travel for example (which faculty often screw up and do wrong, even breaking the law a lot because they're too busy studying, you know, important shit, to remember how to submit receipts properly, or what isn't PCARD allowed). Administrators help advise students, actually manage the grant budgets - something faculty generally SUCK BALLS AT on a good day. Are administrators necessary? No, but the less you have the more faculty have to do and then guess what - the less research they are doing. The less teaching. Etc. I've seen so many guys like this take dumps on admin, when he himself has probably relied on them, without even realizing it, many times in his career.

Listen Q, I don't know what you do for a living - but this is my career. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but anyone that does pretend to have all the answers, like this guy, is lying to himself and thus to you. This is a guy with a whopping total of about 10 years of experience as a faculty member - and he pretends to understand all the inner workings of higher ed across the country?

Give. me. a. break.

I could find you 100 other faculty that would say the opposite of this guy - why would you believe this one man over the rest? I know a guy in admin who has a better h-factor than this kid, and has 25+ years as a faculty and admin, and he would have laughed that guy out of the room.

 

They will get the IP and charge outrageous amount per pill to cover R&D plus unlimited future profit since. They are doing it for profit, not public good.

 

Hmm...I have been on campus at UF recently. And that sweetheart 52.5% you say they have negotiated for IDC sure seems to be building all sorts of buildings.

There is no way UF needs 52.5%

 

Oh you were... on campus... recently... so apparently now you are an expert on higher education administration?
LOL. Funny joke. Maybe I would have believed you if you said you had stayed in a holiday inn express.

 

Again...UF has a sweetheart deal. No way 52.5% IDC is necessary. But keep crying.

 

Just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and we can let this go.