Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from drastically cutting medical research funding that many scientists say will endanger patients and cost jobs.
The new National Institutes of Health policy would strip research groups of hundreds of millions of dollars to cover so-called indirect expenses of studying Alzheimer’s, cancer, heart disease and a host of other illnesses—anything from clinical trials of new treatments to basic lab research that is the foundation for discoveries.
Separate lawsuits filed by a group of 22 states plus organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide sued to stop the cuts, saying they would cause “irreparable harm.”
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston had temporarily blocked the cuts last month. Wednesday, she filed a preliminary injunction that puts the cuts on hold for longer, while the suits proceed.
The NIH, the main funder of biomedical research, awarded about $35 billion in grants to research groups last year. The total is divided into “direct” costs–covering researchers’ salaries and laboratory supplies–and “indirect” costs, the administrative and facility costs needed to support that work.
The Trump administration had dismissed those expenses as “overhead,” but universities and hospitals argue they’re far more critical. They can include such things as electricity to operate sophisticated machinery, hazardous waste disposal, staff who ensure researchers follow safety rules and janitorial workers.
Under prior policy, the government negotiated those rates with institutions. As an example, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate would get another $50,000 to cover indirect expenses for a $100,000 project. The NIH’s new policy would cap indirect costs at a flat rate of 15% instead, calculated to save the agency $4 billion a year.
Dr. David J. Skorton of the Association of American Medical Colleges, one of the plaintiffs, applauded the ruling. “These unlawful cuts would slow medical progress and cost lives,” he wrote in a statement, saying the NIH-funded research “benefits every person and community in America.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Could the US get any more stupid?…..don’t answer that. Apparently yes…
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%).