3 ms·

Again, indirect costs do not come out of the direct costs of running the project. If you get a $250,000 a year NIH R01 (the largest you can get without PITA bu

by Fomite 9y ago

Again, indirect costs do not come out of the direct costs of running the project. If you get a $250,000 a year NIH R01 (the largest you can get without PITA budget details) and your institution has negotiated a 50% rate, the NIH pays your institution $375,000 a year. Your $250K doesn't get reduced. The only time I've ever had something like what you described happen was when a private funder had X total amount they wanted to spend, but hadn't bothered pre-specifying that they'd only pay a particular overhead rate. Which is mainly just a company wanting to get something for nothing, and doesn't leave me particularly sympathetic.

lazyjeff 9y ago
It's kind of a mix. Many agencies and calls say that the maximum amount you can budget is say, $500K over 3 years including indirect costs. So you'll say the project costs $350K and allocate $150K to indirects. If indirects were lower, you could up your direct costs. It's not only private funders who do this. It's the biggest funding agencies in the United States. NSF, DARPA, Army, etc. In fact, I feel most grants operate this way. I'm not sure about NIH since I've only been Co-I on those.
- Fomite 9y ago
  The NIH is by far the largest funder of research in the U.S., so "most grants" has to include them. You are correct that there are grants from agencies with a cap including indirect costs - I confess I have the opposite experience of you, I'm usually the Co-I on NSF-style grants, so I don't look at them much. In that case, yes, if indirects were lower you could up your direct costs. I still contest the idea that the indirect cost system is somehow stealing "your" grant money though (where you = lab).
  - lazyjeff 9y ago
    I didn't use the word "stealing", but they take a cut from the grant money allocated to the PI. Maybe here is another perspective. NSF "Smalls" in my program are 500K, and Army "YIPs" are 360K. If I get a Small or a YIP, and my friend at another university with half the overhead gets the same Small or YIP, my friend will get more spending money than me. I get 300K on the Small, and my friend gets 380K. To do the essentially same unit quantity of research. A university with a higher overhead takes 80K more from the grant that would have gone to the lab.

by Fomite 9y ago

lazyjeff 9y ago

It's kind of a mix. Many agencies and calls say that the maximum amount you can budget is say, $500K over 3 years including indirect costs. So you'll say the project costs $350K and allocate $150K to indirects. If indirects were lower, you could up your direct costs. It's not only private funders who do this. It's the biggest funding agencies in the United States. NSF, DARPA, Army, etc. In fact, I feel most grants operate this way. I'm not sure about NIH since I've only been Co-I on those.

Fomite 9y ago
The NIH is by far the largest funder of research in the U.S., so "most grants" has to include them. You are correct that there are grants from agencies with a cap including indirect costs - I confess I have the opposite experience of you, I'm usually the Co-I on NSF-style grants, so I don't look at them much. In that case, yes, if indirects were lower you could up your direct costs. I still contest the idea that the indirect cost system is somehow stealing "your" grant money though (where you = lab).
- lazyjeff 9y ago
  I didn't use the word "stealing", but they take a cut from the grant money allocated to the PI. Maybe here is another perspective. NSF "Smalls" in my program are 500K, and Army "YIPs" are 360K. If I get a Small or a YIP, and my friend at another university with half the overhead gets the same Small or YIP, my friend will get more spending money than me. I get 300K on the Small, and my friend gets 380K. To do the essentially same unit quantity of research. A university with a higher overhead takes 80K more from the grant that would have gone to the lab.