2 ms·

"there's also your institution skimming 50-60% of your hard won grant funding to let you "rent" their facilities".. Is certainly a creative way to describe ind

by Fomite 9y ago

"there's also your institution skimming 50-60% of your hard won grant funding to let you "rent" their facilities".. Is certainly a creative way to describe indirect costs. For standard NIH/NSF/most Federal grants, they don't come out of "your" grant funding - they're a pre-negotiated rate, and the award amounts are based on indirect costs. If an institution cut their indirect rate to 25%, you wouldn't see that money back, it would just never be there. I've also never been at an institution that's not willing to at least work with a grant giving agency/firm/etc. on lowering the overhead if it's a sticking point. But I will say in my experience that I get a ton of value for my overhead rate - and that it's known in the institution to actually be slightly lower in most cases than the actual cost of doing research.

ethanwillis 9y ago
I'll admit it's definitely a creative way of describing indirect costs. I think we may have some different viewpoints on whether or not those costs are inflated justly/unjustly. I don't think I can argue that the overhead at traditional research institutions is super inflated. It makes sense when you take into account the level of bureaucracy and growing amount of "extra" administration :). But I think it's disingenuous to say that if the costs were cut back to 25% that you'd NEVER see that money. If indirect costs were able to be lowered at these institutions there would be more money in the funding pipeline for direct costs to begin with right? It's fair that you think you get a ton of value for your overhead rate. Different setups are better for different people. My ideal situation is definitely not ideal for most people. I just don't think I can stomach supporting what I see as administrative waste and needless redtape(not that I believe there should be NO redtape, no one sane would believe that?). Also in your other comment about private donors not wanting to cover any indirect costs.. completely agree.

by Fomite 9y ago

ethanwillis 9y ago

I'll admit it's definitely a creative way of describing indirect costs. I think we may have some different viewpoints on whether or not those costs are inflated justly/unjustly. I don't think I can argue that the overhead at traditional research institutions is super inflated. It makes sense when you take into account the level of bureaucracy and growing amount of "extra" administration :). But I think it's disingenuous to say that if the costs were cut back to 25% that you'd NEVER see that money. If indirect costs were able to be lowered at these institutions there would be more money in the funding pipeline for direct costs to begin with right? It's fair that you think you get a ton of value for your overhead rate. Different setups are better for different people. My ideal situation is definitely not ideal for most people. I just don't think I can stomach supporting what I see as administrative waste and needless redtape(not that I believe there should be NO redtape, no one sane would believe that?). Also in your other comment about private donors not wanting to cover any indirect costs.. completely agree.