Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

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

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mfran70, Feb 7, 2025.

  1. pogba

    pogba All American

    391
    100
    1,768
    Nov 28, 2013
    And passing costs to the states to subsidize federal work at that. I just really wonder if that is something they would go for now. I definitely see why you are reasoning that is likely though
     
  2. dingyibvs

    dingyibvs Premium Member

    2,085
    159
    293
    Apr 8, 2007
    But that's not what that executive order states, is it? It's simply a statement that no more than 15% will be paid. If a contractor quoted you $100k for a job with a breakdown of 40% labor, 60% materials, and now you say I'll pay $55k because I believe no more than 15% should be spent on materials, would the contractor be OK with it?

    A contractor would be able to tell you the F off and take another job, but in this case NIH has essentially a monopoly on necessary research that's unlikely to make the lab significant money. The only option now for many would be to find another job/career or another country to work in.
     
  3. gatordavisl

    gatordavisl VIP Member

    32,890
    55,197
    3,753
    Apr 8, 2007
    northern MN
    You lose the argument right here. Almost made it through two sentences!
     
  4. mfran70

    mfran70 VIP Member

    1,878
    189
    298
    Apr 3, 2007
    Central Mass.
    You do realize that these costs are negotiated with OMB by each institution using a formula that is dictated by the government. Institutions do exactly as you describe. They provide evidence for what their F&A costs are. It is not as if the institutions pull some number out of thin air and NIH agrees. There is a detailed process for establishing these rates. If you want to change indirect costs, change the formula and make it effective on new grant applications. Randomly implementing an ill-conceived policy of 15% (without any evidence that this is sufficient) across the board effective immediately is the major issue here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    16,980
    2,174
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    The Gates Foundation is not a large source of primary laboratory-based research. They do a tiny bit of applied research but are mostly involved in implementation. I don't know why you are still trying to equate standard non-profits with primary research.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1