A downside of fat indirect cost payments is that science has in many places become a cash cow. Faculty are penalized for not getting federal grants, not rewarded fro great discoveries.
You should have mentioned Alabama. University of Alabama at Birmingham is a top recipient of NIH grants. In 2023, NIH grants supported apox 4,800 jobs. Mayor of Birmingham is freaking out as jobs at risk are highly paid, adding million$ to regional & state's economies. Senator Britt is caught between TrumpMuskMAGA and Alabama employment. Senator Tuberville is all-in for TrumpMusk (no surprise). See:
“The NIH directive cites the example of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which limits indirect cost rates to 10% and the Packard Foundation whose rate is 15%. I have had grants from both of these foundations and indeed their indirect cost rates are lower. But they are lower for two reasons. First, these foundations are not asking the research to be conducted in new space that the university must provide, but rather to use existing space and facilities. They are “leveraging” what is already present at the university, except for modest administrative costs to pay personnel and prepare budget reports.”
Your logic that grants from the Gates or Packard foundations are different than grants from the NIH is for the most part nonsense. While I can imagine that there are a few cases where it might be different, how are NIH grants not “leveraging” what is already present at the university, but those Foundations’ grants are? 🙄🙄🙄
Now, if you could show data that indirect costs have gone down over time, and are in fact smaller at the largest universities with the biggest endowments, then perhaps your case would be stronger. But you have not shown this, have you?
“Let’s ignore the fact that the NIH budget is $47.439 Billion and not $35 Billion. I guess they can’t even Google their own budget figures.”
As the below link and a little research of your *own* would easily show, the $35B is the amount of NIH grants, while the $47.439B is the NIH total budget!
“Their solution is to shrink it drastically by giving the chief executive of the government even more power …. Huh?”
I have a whole lot of trouble believing the rest of your piece when you start with this complete falsehood about Project 2025.
Their solution is not to “give” the chief executive even more power.
It is to use the power that *previous* Congresses have given the president, and that *previous* presidents have taken for themselves without the courts stopping either… to rein in the excesses of previous administrations, and in particular the excesses of the Biden Administration.
It is not just spin but rather a complete lie on your part to suggest as you do above that “their” solution is to give the President more power.
That $24 million salary number is staggering, but (unless I'm researching it wrong - entirely possible) I believe only around $650k of that is eligible for reimbursement from the government per year based on contract caps and restrictions. Still way too high, in my opinion. I was about to have a conniption at the idea that our tax dollars are putting that many millions directly into the pockets of executives.
Maybe my understanding is too limited, but I don't see why any tax dollars should go directly towards paying the salary of an executive of a privately owned company.
A downside of fat indirect cost payments is that science has in many places become a cash cow. Faculty are penalized for not getting federal grants, not rewarded fro great discoveries.
Thanks for the history lesson on IDCs. And Great point about Space-X. Sadly, we’ll never see their budget if Elon has his way.
You should have mentioned Alabama. University of Alabama at Birmingham is a top recipient of NIH grants. In 2023, NIH grants supported apox 4,800 jobs. Mayor of Birmingham is freaking out as jobs at risk are highly paid, adding million$ to regional & state's economies. Senator Britt is caught between TrumpMuskMAGA and Alabama employment. Senator Tuberville is all-in for TrumpMusk (no surprise). See:
https://www.al.com/news/2025/02/what-would-nih-funding-cuts-mean-for-alabama-5-things-to-know.html
“The NIH directive cites the example of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which limits indirect cost rates to 10% and the Packard Foundation whose rate is 15%. I have had grants from both of these foundations and indeed their indirect cost rates are lower. But they are lower for two reasons. First, these foundations are not asking the research to be conducted in new space that the university must provide, but rather to use existing space and facilities. They are “leveraging” what is already present at the university, except for modest administrative costs to pay personnel and prepare budget reports.”
Your logic that grants from the Gates or Packard foundations are different than grants from the NIH is for the most part nonsense. While I can imagine that there are a few cases where it might be different, how are NIH grants not “leveraging” what is already present at the university, but those Foundations’ grants are? 🙄🙄🙄
Now, if you could show data that indirect costs have gone down over time, and are in fact smaller at the largest universities with the biggest endowments, then perhaps your case would be stronger. But you have not shown this, have you?
“Let’s ignore the fact that the NIH budget is $47.439 Billion and not $35 Billion. I guess they can’t even Google their own budget figures.”
As the below link and a little research of your *own* would easily show, the $35B is the amount of NIH grants, while the $47.439B is the NIH total budget!
https://www.post-gazette.com/business/healthcare-business/2025/02/08/pitt-nih-funding-cut-trump-administration/stories/202502080038?utm_source=chatgpt.com
You thought NIH’s own “indirect” costs of doling out grants were zero? 🙄🙄🙄
“Their solution is to shrink it drastically by giving the chief executive of the government even more power …. Huh?”
I have a whole lot of trouble believing the rest of your piece when you start with this complete falsehood about Project 2025.
Their solution is not to “give” the chief executive even more power.
It is to use the power that *previous* Congresses have given the president, and that *previous* presidents have taken for themselves without the courts stopping either… to rein in the excesses of previous administrations, and in particular the excesses of the Biden Administration.
It is not just spin but rather a complete lie on your part to suggest as you do above that “their” solution is to give the President more power.
Excellent write up.
That $24 million salary number is staggering, but (unless I'm researching it wrong - entirely possible) I believe only around $650k of that is eligible for reimbursement from the government per year based on contract caps and restrictions. Still way too high, in my opinion. I was about to have a conniption at the idea that our tax dollars are putting that many millions directly into the pockets of executives.
Maybe my understanding is too limited, but I don't see why any tax dollars should go directly towards paying the salary of an executive of a privately owned company.