bobo
#64
This thread is basically, Chicken Little, The Movie auditions. LOL!!
1 Like
amuser
#67
The proposal to cap indirect costs would result in a four billion savings. The NIH budget is 47 billion. What are you using as the denominater to get 35%? This looks to me like misinformation, but perhaps you can explain.
Just for amusement, here’s the NIH budget for the last 20 years. Note the 600 million decline in the last year of Biden. Yeah, 4 billion is more than 600 million, but it seems that the hysteria is rather disproportionate.
WJ_PhD
#68
It’s not a 35% cut of the total NIH budget. It’s a proposed cut of 35% of the money being paid to research universities to support existing NIH grants. These are called indirects costs.
Each university/teaching hospital negotiates these rates with the govt every 4-5 years and most are somewhere around 50%. The new admin wants to cut it to 15%. 50-15=35. Some universities would lose even more.
1 Like
amuser
#70
This is false. The average is around 27-28%. (See below.) Those with the most most bloated overhead are up above 50%.
Comparing Indirect Rates Paid by NIH vs. Non-U.S.-Government Institutions
NIH Indirect Cost Rates
-
Average Rate: The NIH pays an average indirect cost rate of 27–28% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) across its ~54,000 annual grants, though negotiated rates vary widely (10–69%) by institution. Private universities often secure 50–60% (e.g., Johns Hopkins at 62%), while public ones average 25–35%.
-
Total Amount: In FY2024 ($47.4 billion budget), indirect costs for extramural research totaled $10–12 billion, or ~25–30% of the $40 billion in grants, averaging $185,000–$222,000 per grant.
-
Negotiation Process: Rates are individually negotiated with institutions every 1–4 years by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), based on actual costs (e.g., facility depreciation, admin salaries). The Trump admin’s 15% cap proposal (February 2025, paused by courts) aimed to cut this to ~$6 billion annually.
-
Flexibility: Rates apply uniformly to NIH grants but can be capped for specific programs (e.g., training grants at 8%).
Non-U.S.-Government Institutions
- Private Foundations (U.S.-Based)
-
Examples: Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust (U.S. operations).
-
Average Rate: Rates are typically lower or nonexistent:
-
HHMI: Doesn’t pay indirect costs separately; it funds investigators directly (e.g., $1 million/year), embedding overhead in total awards without a percentage breakdown.
-
Gates Foundation: Caps indirect costs at 10–15% of direct costs, per its policy, often less than NIH’s 27–28%. For a $500,000 grant, this is $50,000–$75,000 vs. NIH’s ~$98,000 for an R01.
-
Wellcome Trust (U.S.): Offers up to 20% for U.S. partners, but often less (e.g., 10–15%), per a 2014 Nature report.
-
Total Amount: No aggregate data exists, but with smaller grant portfolios (e.g., Gates’ $5 billion annual global budget), indirect costs are a fraction of NIH’s $10–12 billion—likely $500 million–$1 billion across all grants.
-
Approach: Foundations often set flat rates or exclude indirect costs, arguing funds should prioritize research over administration. Many require detailed justification, unlike NIH’s pre-negotiated rates.
What is the source of this info?
amuser
#74
Perhaps you’ll accept the response from Google Gemini. Hard to get farther left than Google, so I expect the response validity should be unquestionable to leftists.
Comparison of NIH Indirect Rates vs. Non-US-Government Institutions
NIH Indirect Rates:
-
Recent Change:
- The NIH has implemented a standard indirect cost rate of 15% for all grants, effective February 10, 2025. This replaces previously negotiated rates that varied by institution.
- Historically, NIH indirect cost rates have averaged between 27% and 28%, with some institutions having rates exceeding 50% or even 60%.
-
Rationale:
- The NIH aims to direct more funding towards direct scientific research costs.
- This change aligns with practices observed in private foundations that typically offer lower indirect cost rates.
Non-US-Government Institutions (e.g., Private Foundations):
-
Lower Rates:
- Private foundations generally provide substantially lower indirect cost rates compared to the federal government.
- Many foundations do not fund indirect costs at all (0%).
- Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have capped indirect cost rates, often at 15% or even 10% for institutions of higher education.
-
Institutional Acceptance:
- Universities readily accept grants from these foundations, even with lower or no indirect cost recovery.
Key Differences:
- The NIH’s move to a standardized 15% rate is a significant shift from its previous practice of negotiated rates, which were often much higher.
- Private foundations consistently maintain lower indirect cost rates, emphasizing direct research funding.
Important Considerations:
- The NIH’s new policy has generated controversy and legal challenges from institutions concerned about the financial impact.
- The differences in how indirect costs are handled, reflects differing priorities between governmental agencies, and private foundations.
1 Like
From what I’ve seen, the arguments isn’t necessarily about any given level of indirect cost caps, the bigger issue is the rate of the change to a lower level. It gives no time to adjust; its one thing to say we’ll be phasing things down over a X year period from 55% to 25% or something, its a whole other thing to suddenly do it in a week.
2 Likes
This in a sense is a good example of the difficulties in managing public policy. Moving fast and breaking things at the centre causes chaos all over the place. It may be that some of the indirect cost calculations are too high. OTOH it may be that it is about right, but reduces the admin costs.
Whichever way changing these things quickly causes all sorts of difficulties. People need to concentrate on dealing with the consequences of the changes to their funding rather than the research they are working on.
2 Likes
WJ_PhD
#77
Google Gemini and Grok are both summarizing the official NIH publication which came out February 7th 2025 (under our new administration)
So its basically saying what the new admin wants it to be, not what it has been historically and what was negotiated and agreed upon between NIH and the research universities.
Examples of current indirect cost rates
University of Alabama. 48.5%
University of Texas-Austin 59%
University of Minnesota 55%
University of Utah 54%
University of Florida 52.5%
Univ of California, SF 61.5%
Harvard 69%
4 Likes
amuser
#78
You posted an article entitled ‘The Foundations of America’s Prosperity Are Being Dismantled’.
There’s a link to an article at the end of the one following that claims people will die because of the reduced overhead reimbursement.
From a guy who ran a UPenn research center.
Money quote: ‘Should a $3 million grant need $900,000 to administer it?’
2 Likes
PBJ
#79
All the money saved from gutting research will be put to good use, such as the 200 million just spent by the DHS on propaganda commercials.
1 Like
I’m not going to defend any given indirect / overhead costs (least of all for Stanford University, which has a huuuuge endowment) - and I can see why 30% of a $3 million dollar grant for administration fees seems insane. I don’t know the rationale for this, all I’m saying is that many universities (and I’m talking primarily about the public universities that don’t have multi-billion $ endowments) obviously rely upon the agreed upon rates, have budgets that have been developed based those overhead / indirect cost rates, and can’t just turn on a dime to a lower overhead rate. If you care about science and public education I think most people would agree that if its going to be lowered, and lowering it seems reasonable, then it just needs to be done at a rate that universities can adjust to without decimating the scientific research and academic programs that are important for moving the process forward.
3 Likes
tananth
#81
The bulk of indirect costs for Medical Research is Lab space. Some Universities effectively charge Investigators rent on Lab space, so an Investigator with a private foundation grant with lower indirect rate will qualify for a smaller Lab, or can chose a slightly larger Lab in an older wing of the University compared to someone with an NIH grant that gets to move into the newest most fancy Lab Wing.
Laboratory real estate is much more expensive than most other real estate and Grants don’t otherwise cover Capital costs like buildings, except via indirect costs.
3 Likes
AnUser
#82
For this reason I don’t think this has to be discussed. There’s nothing to hear from others on this discussion that makes us wiser. If it feels like it will be about one football team vs. the other, then it will be, and people don’t bother to dig into issues instead plant flags.
If you just pin and don’t allow people to post, then people can see the thread and argument for preventing this cut and follow the contact info if they want. This seems reasonable, some will think it’s biased of you, but it’s going to be seen that way either. That’s a cost of participating here. A lot of people I listen to have a left bias, that’s okay… There can be another longevity drug forum if they don’t like it.
The other threads don’t have to have politics, just good science and content like that.
2 Likes
An updated from Richard Miller at the ITP program. When asked about the current funding status of the ITP program, it doesn’t look good:
“Current NIH plans appear not to involve any new awards, and the ITP is funded on an annual basis via a ‘non-competing renewal.’ It is not clear whether the NIH decision to stop making new awards, though clearly illegal, will be stopped by the courts or via public pressure.”
4 Likes
