In my prior life, I was an assistant professor at the University of Texas, leading a research lab focused on a single mission: breaking the cycle of violence using infectious disease modeling. This sounds technical and high-level, and if you looked at any of my 100 publications, they would be barely understandable to the populations they served.
On NIH funding we have heard from an angel -- that would be District Judge ANGEL KELLEY granting a Preliminary Restraining Order (PRO) at the request of Plaintiff, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) vs NIH, National Institute of Health.
My daughter husband and bil (a HS science teacher) participated in a march for Science several years ago. I'll keep an eye out for info, thanks for sharing!
Thank you. Please tell us how we can help with all these slash and burn policies the new administration is authorizing? Are there steps we can take to fight these cuts? (I'm trying to be polite; I want to scream and swear at the current leaders.)
I think this really needs to be communicated to State leaders effectively--highlighting the jobs, the economic benefits, and proposed solutions. I was disappointed to see that the 22 states that put in a restraining order were all blue/swing states. However, some of these changes will have even bigger impacts on red states.
I am so thankful that you were able to use University resources to help sexual abuse and all associated.
I am one of the co-founders in 1974-6 of Austin's first battered women's center which is still going. Perhaps you used them as a source for your research?
Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin filed the suit against NIH and its parent agency, the Department for Health and Human Services.
I would have preferred if Attorneys General from Red States had joined in this legal action. But I also feel that if they want to ignore the impact on their states (out of fear or out of loyalty to Trump?), they ought to be willing to accept the consequences to their own states. Harsh? Perhaps. But we won't escape this downward spiral until and unless some Republican politicians develop spines. As a retired (emeritus) professor who had research grants, I am 100% with you that our scientific community needs to better communicate the value of our research and the associated indirect costs with the public, but most politicians "know better" and could help put an end to the chaos, harm, and simple meanness of the many (fully or partially illegal) Trump-Musk Executive Actions.
We contact our Senators, Congressman, and state Attorney Generals on all these unconstitutional executive orders that we are bombarded with daily. A Federal judge has expanded the block on the Trump administration's efforts to block NIH funding.
We get our guidance from Hopium Chronicles on Substack. The author is Simon Rosenberg, the leading Democratic strategist in DC. We call their offices in DC and at the state level and follow up with emails on their contact forms.
They are not leaders at all - they are robbers, thieves, plain and simple. We are the leaders and we can support the timid Republicans to do the right thing for us and for history. Democrats are already gearing up.
While they as human beings deserve polite I am describing their actions which we have to do a lot more of because people are kind of hung up on adjectives.
"a rushed, two-day policy change is just reckless...And it certainly feels targeted"
So are all the rest of the policy changes. I'm sure it feels targeted, but it's not - at least not the way you probably mean. All of these changes appear to focus on one outcome: putting more money in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy, by cutting government funding for social programs, increasing money, directly or through tax cuts sent to corporations (particularly those owned by the same ultra-wealthy), and thereby widening the gap between the oligarch currently in control of the government and the rest of the population.
Speak out. Spread your data and discontent widely. Contact your legislators often, and by multiple methods. Be vocal and public in your discontent. And thank you for providing the rest of of us with yet more ammunition for our own legislative contacts.
As a research administrator I applaud you for doing a great job explaining what indirect costs are. Like you said, most faculty don’t truly understand. And I do agree that this should be looked - perhaps the first step would be reviewing the process of negotiating the rates with our cognizant agency!!! Thank you!!!
Any researchers who read this and feel comfortable sharing a story to humanize and capture the damage this will do - please share here! I appreciate the first two paragraphs of this post about the tangible reductions in violence for example, in addition to the dollars and cents and ROI.
Yet another harmful wrench thrown into the gears of our economy, too.
You are always so thoughtful and able to look at an issue from several points of view, working really hard to avoid bias creeping in. This post is a superb example of that. Your personal experience is fascinating to learn. Academic institutions are paying the price for their extreme undervaluing of exemplary public communications efforts like yours, as well as their general arrogant dismissiveness of the neighborhoods in which they reside. You are right that a 48-hour deadline for the massive changes needed is ridiculous, but when it comes to academic institutions, it is hard to summon up any sympathy.
I am going to offer an anecdote about why even those of us who value learning and research can come to loathe the academic institutions in our midst. I live down the street from Columbia University. It is an octopus in the neighborhood, snapping up huge amounts of housing and real estate with no end in sight. As an NFP, it is tax-exempt, while using all the public goods the rest of us pay for through exceptionally high taxes.
To add insult to injury, as a result of the student protests last year, it has locked down the campus so no one in the neighborhood can even walk through its beautiful grounds. Our City Councilmember has been trying valiantly to get the university to reopen the campus, so, for example, folks who volunteer with a program for the elderly can enter and play games of scrabble at the convenient little tables scattered around. He has hundreds of examples like this and has pleaded with the university to allow us, its neighbors, back in, all to no avail. Fortress Columbia, right in our midst.
Universities need to do a whole lot of repair work to gain back an ounce of sympathy from those of us who are treated this way—and our neighborhood is chock-a-block with liberals and progressives, not a MAGA in sight.
Back in the 90s there was a scandal over indirect costs at Stanford. The administration jacked the F&A rates up to 74% and used the money for luxury perks for administrative staff. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) protested and Donald Kennedy, university president at the time, resigned as a consequence.
The fallout caused universities across the nation to adopt more transparent F&A accounting standards. It appears that these rates are now subject to annual review and renegotiation with the GAO.
Stanford indirect costs are currently 54%. By comparison the rates at University of California campuses are around 60%. Note that this is the rate for grant-supported research projects conducted on-campus. Off-campus research carries F&A costs of about 25%.
The bottom line is that indirect costs charged by universities have been essentially flat since the 90s - as far as I can tell, increases haven't been tied to inflation.
Announcing that indirect rates will be cut to 15% across the board without any negotiation or review is completely arbitrary, likely illegal, and equally likely to have been conceived by this administration to generally punish universities for not spending enough time indoctrinating students with right-wing ideologies.
Thanks for the explanation. I work in humanities and social science and our state grants (not federal) allow an indirect cost of 2-5%, so the huge indirect costs for NIH grants were confusing to me. Some I still don't understand - wouldn't the university continue to offer wifi even if there wasn't a grant? But any way, you look at it, this slash-and-burn method of cutting is going to end up costing Americans MORE money in the long run.
This is a really good question. The challenge is that some biomedical research is super expensive-- like labs with cutting-edge medical technology or places where animals are housed. So, while some research is cheaper (like mine where I went offsite to do research or perhaps yours), it's offset by expensive research. All of these indirect costs are pooled. This is why some researchers (including myself) think transparency is one solution; so we actually know where this money is going.
Large unitemized blocks of funding are a major red flag in accounting. They are places where waste and fraud easily occur.
While I think this administration is implementing it poorly, I also think that forcing more itemization of expenses is not a bad thing in the long run.
From the indispensable Katelyn Jetelina, and explanation of indirect or “overhead” costs and why we should care about the Administration’s recent action.
My early work in public health was funded by NIH grants to my academic institution. Early quality of care mostly. Indirect costs support the framework holding the researchers up. Vital.
A major impact of this move, even if countered effectively, is but one of several moves to undermine education and science at all levels. When viewed in the attack on “facts”, on the Dept of Education, NIH, and other institutions it seems that a major goal is to destroy a sector of society that in other countries has been a major source of pushback as dictators take power. Would love perspectives on how this larger scope perspective can be responded to effectively.
Thank you for providing insight into these indirect costs. I didn’t for a second think the cuts were right, but this is helpful for someone like me not in the health or research sphere to understand how things work.
Morgan Housel’s book Same as Ever has a chapter about the value of storytelling, and specifically cites how research is often buried because it lacks a good story. Your line of thinking seems to parallel this. Thanks for continuing to convey the meaningful information to those of of us who are concerned about the future.
I am really grateful to have learned about Dr. Jetelina from another Substack I subscribe to, Hopium Chronicles by Simon Rosenberg in DC. Simon is a leading Democratic strategist who has motivated us to stay Do Something (per Michelle Obama) every single day. We call our representatives at the Federal Level: Senators and our Congressman on these issues we have bombarded with since Day 1 (the inauguration of trump). Senate and House phones are overloaded. A typical Senate office can receive a huge number of calls per minute and the voice mail becomes full. Then we follow up with emails on their contact forms. And, most importantly, we contact our State Attorney Generals. There are a number of Democratic State Attorneys General who have filed a lawsuit against cutting funding for NIH. Here is a link. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/politics/trump-administration-public-health-funding/index.html
We have also successfully put a stop to the Treasury Department obtaining our private financial information, the issue of ending birthright citizenship, and other attacks on our Democracy.
Things are in the works for a 50-state march for science to be held in state capitols on March 7.
BREAKING:
On NIH funding we have heard from an angel -- that would be District Judge ANGEL KELLEY granting a Preliminary Restraining Order (PRO) at the request of Plaintiff, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) vs NIH, National Institute of Health.
That is pending federal case 25-CV-10340-CK,.
Plaintiff AAMC's motion: GRANTED.
Do you have a link for this?
My daughter husband and bil (a HS science teacher) participated in a march for Science several years ago. I'll keep an eye out for info, thanks for sharing!
Thank you. Please tell us how we can help with all these slash and burn policies the new administration is authorizing? Are there steps we can take to fight these cuts? (I'm trying to be polite; I want to scream and swear at the current leaders.)
I think this really needs to be communicated to State leaders effectively--highlighting the jobs, the economic benefits, and proposed solutions. I was disappointed to see that the 22 states that put in a restraining order were all blue/swing states. However, some of these changes will have even bigger impacts on red states.
I am so thankful that you were able to use University resources to help sexual abuse and all associated.
I am one of the co-founders in 1974-6 of Austin's first battered women's center which is still going. Perhaps you used them as a source for your research?
I'm proud to be a Washingon resident, it was one of our judges who put the restraining order in place.
I think that dichotomy resulted from red states declining to join, hoping they could plead their cases directly.
I fear that you are correct....
This is what I worry about, too
YLE, can you please share a link to that list of states?
Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Wisconsin filed the suit against NIH and its parent agency, the Department for Health and Human Services.
I would have preferred if Attorneys General from Red States had joined in this legal action. But I also feel that if they want to ignore the impact on their states (out of fear or out of loyalty to Trump?), they ought to be willing to accept the consequences to their own states. Harsh? Perhaps. But we won't escape this downward spiral until and unless some Republican politicians develop spines. As a retired (emeritus) professor who had research grants, I am 100% with you that our scientific community needs to better communicate the value of our research and the associated indirect costs with the public, but most politicians "know better" and could help put an end to the chaos, harm, and simple meanness of the many (fully or partially illegal) Trump-Musk Executive Actions.
Thx Katelyn
We contact our Senators, Congressman, and state Attorney Generals on all these unconstitutional executive orders that we are bombarded with daily. A Federal judge has expanded the block on the Trump administration's efforts to block NIH funding.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/politics/trump-administration-public-health-funding/index.html
We get our guidance from Hopium Chronicles on Substack. The author is Simon Rosenberg, the leading Democratic strategist in DC. We call their offices in DC and at the state level and follow up with emails on their contact forms.
They are not leaders at all - they are robbers, thieves, plain and simple. We are the leaders and we can support the timid Republicans to do the right thing for us and for history. Democrats are already gearing up.
I agree, but as I said, I was trying to be polite on the forum rather than swearing and calling them scum, etc.
While they as human beings deserve polite I am describing their actions which we have to do a lot more of because people are kind of hung up on adjectives.
"a rushed, two-day policy change is just reckless...And it certainly feels targeted"
So are all the rest of the policy changes. I'm sure it feels targeted, but it's not - at least not the way you probably mean. All of these changes appear to focus on one outcome: putting more money in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy, by cutting government funding for social programs, increasing money, directly or through tax cuts sent to corporations (particularly those owned by the same ultra-wealthy), and thereby widening the gap between the oligarch currently in control of the government and the rest of the population.
Speak out. Spread your data and discontent widely. Contact your legislators often, and by multiple methods. Be vocal and public in your discontent. And thank you for providing the rest of of us with yet more ammunition for our own legislative contacts.
As a research administrator I applaud you for doing a great job explaining what indirect costs are. Like you said, most faculty don’t truly understand. And I do agree that this should be looked - perhaps the first step would be reviewing the process of negotiating the rates with our cognizant agency!!! Thank you!!!
Any researchers who read this and feel comfortable sharing a story to humanize and capture the damage this will do - please share here! I appreciate the first two paragraphs of this post about the tangible reductions in violence for example, in addition to the dollars and cents and ROI.
Yet another harmful wrench thrown into the gears of our economy, too.
https://www.startribune.com/nih-funding-could-save-your-life/601220669
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Story of the value of NIH research
Thank you Barbara Rice 🙏
You are always so thoughtful and able to look at an issue from several points of view, working really hard to avoid bias creeping in. This post is a superb example of that. Your personal experience is fascinating to learn. Academic institutions are paying the price for their extreme undervaluing of exemplary public communications efforts like yours, as well as their general arrogant dismissiveness of the neighborhoods in which they reside. You are right that a 48-hour deadline for the massive changes needed is ridiculous, but when it comes to academic institutions, it is hard to summon up any sympathy.
I am going to offer an anecdote about why even those of us who value learning and research can come to loathe the academic institutions in our midst. I live down the street from Columbia University. It is an octopus in the neighborhood, snapping up huge amounts of housing and real estate with no end in sight. As an NFP, it is tax-exempt, while using all the public goods the rest of us pay for through exceptionally high taxes.
To add insult to injury, as a result of the student protests last year, it has locked down the campus so no one in the neighborhood can even walk through its beautiful grounds. Our City Councilmember has been trying valiantly to get the university to reopen the campus, so, for example, folks who volunteer with a program for the elderly can enter and play games of scrabble at the convenient little tables scattered around. He has hundreds of examples like this and has pleaded with the university to allow us, its neighbors, back in, all to no avail. Fortress Columbia, right in our midst.
Universities need to do a whole lot of repair work to gain back an ounce of sympathy from those of us who are treated this way—and our neighborhood is chock-a-block with liberals and progressives, not a MAGA in sight.
Back in the 90s there was a scandal over indirect costs at Stanford. The administration jacked the F&A rates up to 74% and used the money for luxury perks for administrative staff. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) protested and Donald Kennedy, university president at the time, resigned as a consequence.
The fallout caused universities across the nation to adopt more transparent F&A accounting standards. It appears that these rates are now subject to annual review and renegotiation with the GAO.
Stanford indirect costs are currently 54%. By comparison the rates at University of California campuses are around 60%. Note that this is the rate for grant-supported research projects conducted on-campus. Off-campus research carries F&A costs of about 25%.
The bottom line is that indirect costs charged by universities have been essentially flat since the 90s - as far as I can tell, increases haven't been tied to inflation.
Announcing that indirect rates will be cut to 15% across the board without any negotiation or review is completely arbitrary, likely illegal, and equally likely to have been conceived by this administration to generally punish universities for not spending enough time indoctrinating students with right-wing ideologies.
Thanks for the explanation. I work in humanities and social science and our state grants (not federal) allow an indirect cost of 2-5%, so the huge indirect costs for NIH grants were confusing to me. Some I still don't understand - wouldn't the university continue to offer wifi even if there wasn't a grant? But any way, you look at it, this slash-and-burn method of cutting is going to end up costing Americans MORE money in the long run.
This is a really good question. The challenge is that some biomedical research is super expensive-- like labs with cutting-edge medical technology or places where animals are housed. So, while some research is cheaper (like mine where I went offsite to do research or perhaps yours), it's offset by expensive research. All of these indirect costs are pooled. This is why some researchers (including myself) think transparency is one solution; so we actually know where this money is going.
Large unitemized blocks of funding are a major red flag in accounting. They are places where waste and fraud easily occur.
While I think this administration is implementing it poorly, I also think that forcing more itemization of expenses is not a bad thing in the long run.
Agree- I think transparency is something a lot of people can agree on.
Most social science and humanities grants do not need the infrastructure support required for effective medical research.
excellent explanation, thank you Doctor!
From the indispensable Katelyn Jetelina, and explanation of indirect or “overhead” costs and why we should care about the Administration’s recent action.
My early work in public health was funded by NIH grants to my academic institution. Early quality of care mostly. Indirect costs support the framework holding the researchers up. Vital.
A major impact of this move, even if countered effectively, is but one of several moves to undermine education and science at all levels. When viewed in the attack on “facts”, on the Dept of Education, NIH, and other institutions it seems that a major goal is to destroy a sector of society that in other countries has been a major source of pushback as dictators take power. Would love perspectives on how this larger scope perspective can be responded to effectively.
Thank you for providing insight into these indirect costs. I didn’t for a second think the cuts were right, but this is helpful for someone like me not in the health or research sphere to understand how things work.
Morgan Housel’s book Same as Ever has a chapter about the value of storytelling, and specifically cites how research is often buried because it lacks a good story. Your line of thinking seems to parallel this. Thanks for continuing to convey the meaningful information to those of of us who are concerned about the future.
I am really grateful to have learned about Dr. Jetelina from another Substack I subscribe to, Hopium Chronicles by Simon Rosenberg in DC. Simon is a leading Democratic strategist who has motivated us to stay Do Something (per Michelle Obama) every single day. We call our representatives at the Federal Level: Senators and our Congressman on these issues we have bombarded with since Day 1 (the inauguration of trump). Senate and House phones are overloaded. A typical Senate office can receive a huge number of calls per minute and the voice mail becomes full. Then we follow up with emails on their contact forms. And, most importantly, we contact our State Attorney Generals. There are a number of Democratic State Attorneys General who have filed a lawsuit against cutting funding for NIH. Here is a link. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/11/politics/trump-administration-public-health-funding/index.html
We have also successfully put a stop to the Treasury Department obtaining our private financial information, the issue of ending birthright citizenship, and other attacks on our Democracy.
Well said, and very to the point, as always. Many thanks for all that you do.
Thank you for this important piece. Your work with YLE matters so much!