3 ms·

Bio research needs buildings. Electricity, heat, lights need to be on in those buildings and they need maintenance. Labs need equipment and often very specializ

Bio research needs buildings. Electricity, heat, lights need to be on in those buildings and they need maintenance. Labs need equipment and often very specialized and expensive space. Not to mention someone needs to do accounting, payroll, taxes, immigration, maintenance, legal, ethics, etc. And all of these people need facilities, offices, computers, etc. Just like any corporation! These are indirect costs. You cannot do research without them. What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. So, no, more money isn't going to go to better research. It's going to go to much worse research and it will be a massive waste. Instead of doing the best research I can, I'll need to think about the lowest overhead projects so that my department doesn't go bankrupt. That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That's a bad deal for everyone! Good scientists don't want to do bad research. The best will leave. This will destroy the lead that the US has in science and technology over the rest of the world. Never mind kill countless people who would have been saved by new treatments.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. The whole debate is whether 15% indirect costs is sufficient or whether it needs to be 30%+. Without a doubt universities are bloated and many don’t invest appropriately in their facilities — but where is the appropriate line? Unfortunately, you didn’t add to that debate: you assumed the conclusion and then catastrophized based on your assumption. That exact style of argumentation is what makes people distrust that 30%+ really is needed — because nobody itemizes how, they just immediately resort to shaming and emotional manipulation. > That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That’s compounded by all your personal examples of how this impacts you being direct costs — which have greater funding, with this change. And your claim that you can no longer do them dubious at best.
- kelnos 2y ago
  This thinking is completely backward. If there is an established threshold, and you want to change it, it is on you to do the homework to determine that the lower threshold will be sufficient and won't cause harm. It's not the responsibility of the people currently doing research (the way they've done so for years) to justify the current threshold.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    The executive in charge of the grant-giving agencies changed policy — after looking at rates from other grants, which fell in the 10-15% range. If you want the public to believe that was wrong, you’ll need to make that case.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      May I ask what your actual gripe is with level of spending that was going into research before? Is there actual evidence that shows there was an issue that needed to be immediately addressed the way it was? Some evidence of "fraud" perhaps ?
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        Discussions with university researchers I know personally indicated an inappropriate amount was going to the university at large, rather than project funding.
        bamboozled 2y ago
        Why not just address that singular issue (if true and truly problematic) just be addressed then get back to business as usual ? How do you know the money going to the university isn't just forwarded onto the professors so they are funded? Doesn't sound that suspicious to me.
    - light_hue_1 2y ago
      No they didn't look at other grants! They looked at a handful of cherry picked charities that love to donate to high profile projects. Universities subsidize these grants internally to get other donations! When I get money from say the Gates foundation, they are almost always topping up existing research not doing something new. On a high profile topic donors are attracted to. These cherry picked foundations also give very little money; well under 1% of what we bring in. So the lack of indirect costs has a minor effect on the system that gets balanced by other well meaning donors. Had they looked at other grants they would have seen that the indirect costs are in line with what NIH was paying. The bulk of other grants includes NSF, DARPA, ONR, etc. Or they could have asked, when a corporation gives a university money, what do they think is a reasonable overhead rate? Because we don't accept money from for profit entities at anything less than the full overhead rate. And corporations pay it because it's reasonable. That's because they fund a lot of research and because they aren't a charity we would subsidize with other donations. Or they could ask. When a corporation gets an NIH grant, what are their indirect costs? Are university indirect costs in line? After all everyone needs to keep the lights on. Corporations are not subject to the cap at all! They can get a grant and charge 100% overhead. This only applies to universities. The government could not give a biotech company a grant with 15% overhead, no company would ever take it. I have seen the indirect costs that some major corporations charge. 100% is low for them! And the government pays it. In every single contract with industry. Except for universities. That they single out to dry to drive into insolvency. So no. They didn't look at other grants. They could have computed countless statistics against tens of millions of grants for hundreds of billions of dollars. They picked the most elite nice small charities that give out a few hundred grants that we fund ourselves for the most bleeding heart projects.

zmgsabst 2y ago

> What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. The whole debate is whether 15% indirect costs is sufficient or whether it needs to be 30%+. Without a doubt universities are bloated and many don’t invest appropriately in their facilities — but where is the appropriate line? Unfortunately, you didn’t add to that debate: you assumed the conclusion and then catastrophized based on your assumption. That exact style of argumentation is what makes people distrust that 30%+ really is needed — because nobody itemizes how, they just immediately resort to shaming and emotional manipulation. > That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That’s compounded by all your personal examples of how this impacts you being direct costs — which have greater funding, with this change. And your claim that you can no longer do them dubious at best.

kelnos 2y ago
This thinking is completely backward. If there is an established threshold, and you want to change it, it is on you to do the homework to determine that the lower threshold will be sufficient and won't cause harm. It's not the responsibility of the people currently doing research (the way they've done so for years) to justify the current threshold.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  The executive in charge of the grant-giving agencies changed policy — after looking at rates from other grants, which fell in the 10-15% range. If you want the public to believe that was wrong, you’ll need to make that case.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    May I ask what your actual gripe is with level of spending that was going into research before? Is there actual evidence that shows there was an issue that needed to be immediately addressed the way it was? Some evidence of "fraud" perhaps ?
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      Discussions with university researchers I know personally indicated an inappropriate amount was going to the university at large, rather than project funding.
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        Why not just address that singular issue (if true and truly problematic) just be addressed then get back to business as usual ? How do you know the money going to the university isn't just forwarded onto the professors so they are funded? Doesn't sound that suspicious to me.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    No they didn't look at other grants! They looked at a handful of cherry picked charities that love to donate to high profile projects. Universities subsidize these grants internally to get other donations! When I get money from say the Gates foundation, they are almost always topping up existing research not doing something new. On a high profile topic donors are attracted to. These cherry picked foundations also give very little money; well under 1% of what we bring in. So the lack of indirect costs has a minor effect on the system that gets balanced by other well meaning donors. Had they looked at other grants they would have seen that the indirect costs are in line with what NIH was paying. The bulk of other grants includes NSF, DARPA, ONR, etc. Or they could have asked, when a corporation gives a university money, what do they think is a reasonable overhead rate? Because we don't accept money from for profit entities at anything less than the full overhead rate. And corporations pay it because it's reasonable. That's because they fund a lot of research and because they aren't a charity we would subsidize with other donations. Or they could ask. When a corporation gets an NIH grant, what are their indirect costs? Are university indirect costs in line? After all everyone needs to keep the lights on. Corporations are not subject to the cap at all! They can get a grant and charge 100% overhead. This only applies to universities. The government could not give a biotech company a grant with 15% overhead, no company would ever take it. I have seen the indirect costs that some major corporations charge. 100% is low for them! And the government pays it. In every single contract with industry. Except for universities. That they single out to dry to drive into insolvency. So no. They didn't look at other grants. They could have computed countless statistics against tens of millions of grants for hundreds of billions of dollars. They picked the most elite nice small charities that give out a few hundred grants that we fund ourselves for the most bleeding heart projects.