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

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.