3 ms·

>$10m isn't really very much in the scheme of research. NIH alone funds to order of $25bil a year in science research Sure, but the NIH is funding near to 50,0

>$10m isn't really very much in the scheme of research. NIH alone funds to order of $25bil a year in science research Sure, but the NIH is funding near to 50,000 competitive grants a year. Some googling online gives median/average grant size at $300k/$350k. Even $25bil over 50,000 projects is $500k a project a year. An academic institution will take 50% or more straight off the top, so you're looking closer to $150k to $250k a year. $10 million is a lot of money. Science can be expensive but that $10 million can last a long time.

jrochkind1 11y ago
I agree it's real money, enough to do some real stuff. But: > An academic institution will take 50% or more straight off the top, so you're looking closer to $150k to $250k a year. Well, that 'overhead' is paying for things like lab space, electricity, health insurance (at least for the faculty, good luck grad students), liability insurance, etc. Not to mention the actual salary of the PI and/or other researchers -- which universities in STEM schools increasingly expect to be covered by grants too. The academic institutions would argue all the 'overhead' they take is legit funding of things necessary for the research to take place, but even if you think they are spending it inefficiently or 'stealing' money for unrelated things... I think as a rough napkin calculation, the $500K is probably still closer to that same $500K when YC Research spends it too, not twice as much.
- Amorymeltzer 11y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. I debated bringing it up, and honestly YCR is likely to have a large, up-front facilities cost (regulations, certifications, etc.). It would make sense to start easy - don't start off with infectious diseases of humans - and build from there. But still, I'd wager that YCR will run far more efficiently than your average university. Someone above brought up the UC system: management-level positions have grown over 200% the last few decades (http://universityprobe.org/2011/03/new-data-on-management-growth-at-uc/ http://universityprobe.org/2011/03/new-data-on-management-gr...). Even if we limit the scope to department administrators and staff, YCR won't need nearly the same sort of personnel infrastructure.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    More efficiently, I'm sure. For starters, I'm prejudiced to think any smaller org will run more efficiently than a larger one (even though I realize this is literally the opposite of conventional/mainstream assumptions!). But TWICE as efficient? Also, I think all those administrator salaries are probably being funded by tuition (that is, by government subsidized student loans that the students will be paying back for most of the rest of their lives), rather than research grants. :) Or actually you didn't even suggest twice as efficient, you suggested virtually ZERO costs other than direct research costs -- would we call that INFINITELY more efficient with a zero in the denominator? :) (Not even including salaries? Aren't those also funded in part by the 'overhead'?)
    - Amorymeltzer 11y ago
      It was a point of comparison. The NIH pool is large but spread very thin and, we can both agree, less efficiently than YCR is likely to be. Twice? Infinite? No of course note, but it's a point of interest in the "$10 million isn't so much" discussion. And no, researcher's salaries (postdocs, tech, grad students, etc.) are not included. The indirect costs go to the university to pay for department/college-level utilities, facilities, infrastructure, and administrator salaries (which, admittedly, the lab does benefit from).
      - jrochkind1 11y ago
        Well, salaries obviously WOULD have to be included in the YC case, there's no other pool of money for them to come from! So that would actually be a significant cost that the NIH grants _don't_ have to include (if it's not included in the overhead), but the YC Research seed money WOULD have to. But I understand that research faculty in science and biomed are increasingly expected to bring in grant funding as a condition of employment/tenure. It sounds to me like the institution expects to help pay their salaries with it. And with institutions hiring faculty _to_ do research, not caring about teaching really, evaluated solely on research, they are basically there to do research... it actually doesn't sound that unreasonable to consider a portion of their salary overhead. The research couldn't get done if they weren't getting the salary, after all. But anyway, yeah, like I said, I do agree with your original point that this is real money that is enough to fund real research.
aroch 11y ago
$10m is a lot of money for some fields, but in the scheme of high tech and high reward biological/chemical/physical research it really isn't. Personnel overhead alone for a reasonably sized group (10-20) can range from $2m on the low end, up to 5 or 6 million on the high end. For example, at many institutions it takes ~$250k to support a single researcher (Salary, health/personal insurance, institutional insurance) .

jrochkind1 11y ago

I agree it's real money, enough to do some real stuff. But: > An academic institution will take 50% or more straight off the top, so you're looking closer to $150k to $250k a year. Well, that 'overhead' is paying for things like lab space, electricity, health insurance (at least for the faculty, good luck grad students), liability insurance, etc. Not to mention the actual salary of the PI and/or other researchers -- which universities in STEM schools increasingly expect to be covered by grants too. The academic institutions would argue all the 'overhead' they take is legit funding of things necessary for the research to take place, but even if you think they are spending it inefficiently or 'stealing' money for unrelated things... I think as a rough napkin calculation, the $500K is probably still closer to that same $500K when YC Research spends it too, not twice as much.

Amorymeltzer 11y ago
Maybe, maybe not. I debated bringing it up, and honestly YCR is likely to have a large, up-front facilities cost (regulations, certifications, etc.). It would make sense to start easy - don't start off with infectious diseases of humans - and build from there. But still, I'd wager that YCR will run far more efficiently than your average university. Someone above brought up the UC system: management-level positions have grown over 200% the last few decades (http://universityprobe.org/2011/03/new-data-on-management-growth-at-uc/ http://universityprobe.org/2011/03/new-data-on-management-gr...). Even if we limit the scope to department administrators and staff, YCR won't need nearly the same sort of personnel infrastructure.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  More efficiently, I'm sure. For starters, I'm prejudiced to think any smaller org will run more efficiently than a larger one (even though I realize this is literally the opposite of conventional/mainstream assumptions!). But TWICE as efficient? Also, I think all those administrator salaries are probably being funded by tuition (that is, by government subsidized student loans that the students will be paying back for most of the rest of their lives), rather than research grants. :) Or actually you didn't even suggest twice as efficient, you suggested virtually ZERO costs other than direct research costs -- would we call that INFINITELY more efficient with a zero in the denominator? :) (Not even including salaries? Aren't those also funded in part by the 'overhead'?)
  - Amorymeltzer 11y ago
    It was a point of comparison. The NIH pool is large but spread very thin and, we can both agree, less efficiently than YCR is likely to be. Twice? Infinite? No of course note, but it's a point of interest in the "$10 million isn't so much" discussion. And no, researcher's salaries (postdocs, tech, grad students, etc.) are not included. The indirect costs go to the university to pay for department/college-level utilities, facilities, infrastructure, and administrator salaries (which, admittedly, the lab does benefit from).
    - jrochkind1 11y ago
      Well, salaries obviously WOULD have to be included in the YC case, there's no other pool of money for them to come from! So that would actually be a significant cost that the NIH grants _don't_ have to include (if it's not included in the overhead), but the YC Research seed money WOULD have to. But I understand that research faculty in science and biomed are increasingly expected to bring in grant funding as a condition of employment/tenure. It sounds to me like the institution expects to help pay their salaries with it. And with institutions hiring faculty _to_ do research, not caring about teaching really, evaluated solely on research, they are basically there to do research... it actually doesn't sound that unreasonable to consider a portion of their salary overhead. The research couldn't get done if they weren't getting the salary, after all. But anyway, yeah, like I said, I do agree with your original point that this is real money that is enough to fund real research.

aroch 11y ago

$10m is a lot of money for some fields, but in the scheme of high tech and high reward biological/chemical/physical research it really isn't. Personnel overhead alone for a reasonably sized group (10-20) can range from $2m on the low end, up to 5 or 6 million on the high end. For example, at many institutions it takes ~$250k to support a single researcher (Salary, health/personal insurance, institutional insurance) .