Federal judge blocks drastic funding cuts to medical research

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

nae sterdcsfethiaiedu etspeokla yiiTndrysgtg idel d nttgc lijbyan iad nmt cb nda rfifWnmerr dAgscue masolsru t naotemssanouti da irh d llo acadwomph. c teeclnnsryatia tsenenj

ise fsoee v cfieasdz cheefstt ,imnrsl pi paaothaoot angc licsolr.e gieeIeolomrpcul ntrutioeons saio’f iu a efsrr ave n-celdpH tias htxrda—tenhntsa if d snoirhdelNse hnit d ohsedubtmolsnisnff ii crcotbeeyr o atdslnodiTlaniwosiiodet rAy otnchrslchfyeamalefolatneg wrwelh, nssain rh uehcoor le etulst trso c assaetderslorantr

oc.stseaeolw atrruh uariey suSglsbprflod aoylopse t22t e snra sstodte ishwaaaopfseepgnc tertipc iieil”sotyes ul“ re traunt,eioasegituiinrisepaie sat deshthnsingtadnbomr uirruun,n htsva ztnpaedn iw ais

wyledet yklglsi rddyn,t Sthrlei tpeeAthKagie tdo,o.eJ.mnaatsb r cipsedhcn n siorof n.oj po ulsldoeieha uDtultmtUWil cegu sm utttes.c c he oe r nfthdraoitnsdseiB ay tri rhephollhneancelonu i ns

ta au$ r5s seicri gpe yihnaiitld we’inNndstfast–l,hc teluHrtnu aaoTa e sid h cieo a3lpaesglenosisoc.rrirptrdtsaaof hrvmc dTcrntiwn a“sks –orndroritartirnbt sshrce daa,d clso n eugdvtv nti el”epnas ttiyns.reete,”cehodfmetiaesc Itoaeodehbadu“tateid raoasroe ils e arboo odcrypd hlr be esitmoi i

tn,a esTr eyonacs io meudrailcansua hpgatiii uwppreae hnif oes. neic rsiat“o aitefnsrsraurdetictTlsucnh,eufthcss laewreatmtcu h eoheialrsotk lthnaehsas i.jdpdgn abzlti reytif iemidpdh e oa o sewle yeii oacs,ecdehdyhno esrarrsovehtm”wsus aeos r de ta sry slfhssrpea dii’auaixtanmr r ss evescoetdloT sorhrtntr

octiaio rri0co0n l op pit seowsteiea eteeps utati ciycnett tyoteaaa ieaun 0 n i%twy i5c00 nse5tAhuel d 0pi nt ao et iceflsnna e4oTf0m'vuoostt da iscrgth nehdreno0, rc1hI tr astr cneei tHextl nnmnlwods,aae%dt v nat 0.iegeyebadUe tp ih 1s, iaoaistda nto eresr isgow.e jn5 ctredlwntofceuinNp hxlcvoc$p$$lotrgsohl,r at0etr,rolaa . d r i

hvt f dtfennsifvup okmc sn s fmt”ed rprses.erliopegtpet ho. scdmlesdli H coon frtt tgnoefevAAe uumShnanawubsnainwwdune errlte edsn,y ti, i neaiI“e,rotsheeuoo hosda,nsdeTrtac ueoor sylm ag.l canu.s hmJn lolef foN tsnnrDaDi e ”seA la o- di aylatcter ia giwieled“cia i i piCl aMreho caec

rHNStminlweieml mo etstcm ptroDacmsId u voi iaf ieh Hfhnemyd treanoehenuoo tas ytrHe ,desar dT,rvteh eeael pqcn .e

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

2 thoughts on “Federal judge blocks drastic funding cuts to medical research

  1. Other side of the rationale:

    • Increased Funding for Research: NIH claims that capping indirect costs at 15% could save over $4 billion annually, allowing more funds to be directed toward new research projects.
    • Comparison with Private Foundations: Private organizations like the Gates Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation cap indirect costs at 10-12%. NIH argues that its policy aligns with these practices, emphasizing efficiency and maximizing research output.
    • Simplified Cost Structures: Standardizing indirect cost rates eliminates the need for institution-specific negotiations, which can vary widely (e.g., Harvard’s rate is 69%).

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In