Cnn
B (b (b (
The US National Institute of Health is reducing the maximum “indirect cost rate” so that the research agencies can charge the government, the agency. Said At the end of Friday – the move that scientists said could prove destructive to the nation as a research leader.
An organization has generally allocated about 30 % for infrastructure costs such as facilities, maintenance and security in an average NIH grant. Some entities charged 60 % or more. The new NIH policy will indirectly cost 15 %, which is immediately efficient.
The agency said in its announcement, “NIH spent more than 300,000 researchers at more than 300,000 researchers in more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutes in the financial year 2023 What. ” “Of this funding, approximately $ 26 billion went to costs directly to research, while NIH’s indirect cost rate was allocated $ 9 billion for overhead.”
The agency said the move would align the government’s indirect costs more closely with the rates paid by private grounds. The Gates Foundation, for example, pays a 10 % rate for indirect costs, while Carnegie Corporation and John Temple Payment Pay 15 % of the cost of indirect costs for research.
But researchers said that the new policy would drop the nation as a global leader.
“Research is not just about having scientists and lab equipment. According to Madison’s Harold H. Hanser Jr., a professor at the Yale School of Medicine, Dr. Harlan Kermolz said, to ensure that the institution has a support system. A video Internal Madison Newsletter. “Without covering these overhead costs, the research institutes will struggle to maintain research infrastructure, which enables medical aid.”
Kermhols said that the institutions themselves will have to absorb these expenses, or end their work. “Certainly there are opportunities to smooth operations, reduce unnecessary overheads, make research financing more transparent and efficient, but indirectly reduce the rate so suddenly, so large, without any security arrangements. K, will threaten the basic infrastructure that supports our research ability. ”
Washington University biologist, Dr. Carl Bergstrom, noted on social media that the new policy means “one of the most important sources of university financing nationwide is to reduce the reduction of 75 % or more “”
“For a large university, there is already a sudden and devastating decline of millions of dollars against budget funds,” he said. A post Blueski on
Dr. Theodore Evashina, a professor of pulmonary and critical care policy and administration at Johns Hopkins University, said the move was “disastrously a bad idea.”
He wrote to CNN in an email, “This will be disastrous for research.” “This would mean that the direct costs we receive will not go close. This means that private foundations that currently pay for research (often just because of NIH infrastructure. Paying) Would not want to pay, because their money will not go away.
“And clearly, this means that the life of my children and grandchildren – and maybe your life will be less and sick, because discoveries will not be made. This means that NIH research, which is the backbone of the high -tech health economy, will reduce their economic opportunities.
US Sen, Petty Murray, De Washington said that suddenly low indirect cost rate is illegal under the specialization bill of Labor-HS Education.
“This fund helps to change patients’ lives, prepare us for prepare of pandemic diseases and other global health risks, and ensures that the United States becomes a global leader in biomedical research,” he said. A statement. He said that after the global pandemic, which led to the grinding of the global economy and it would implement more than a million Americans, it is unimaginable. [President Donald] Trump and [Elon] Kasturi wants to pull funds that will force public and private labs all over the United States to shutter.
In his previous administration, Trump proposed to stop indirect costs, but the attempt failed. Recently, indirect cost reform was one of the proposals of the Project 2025, a clear plan to restore the government during its campaign.
