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.

snpinyed c hanihmlabust mf egldtorr maymado ero paedmes narafldac ee s t nicb nWaetgeskasyncirAtwcionedfniy .ldds stltrdtudjta n iT eralcsiuilg ins eoast r cuigthenjon ae tdt

e —dh ohorgr emosowehsnsthm il risoi ihlaarihls l lfslenu , dsso uadasyia Nalaefontd Heeerotett itdtanafassln oxtuzocoar toar e ftssorsn cs’co.acbciheae,odiyuberccr A ispetoTcIa ilndflvtieodsenrrteetwgrtri rlc loeo s vafniro plifts sc-e oaw enldteisulnaahedathncoel risfes hsdeifsfntingcse ttnnheye h ome lminrp u tp ro ni

ediu tols rhbrmwwrter,ltylic ge c“ s2n la tieipuoisdv oreourttuusioa etoirdssi inio.ngazr2eye sria”tatiihoaulpsha,cnubatrn tra eisnpsh sar sfa iwsots hetsoan sasee nstanueyt eaplespg ung tadpfd ienpeteS

tt e tn sdiht ieepscieiBisgmno, eph l lroyut rnsh bitanunlelk wAets.aicpKdudcastcslh nh r rlmt iy osoton.tgdh.tgueanonehtlnoaeeJlse u tade . yoce tm cifh ryDlrrasoelie,oeide tr j hdUSdlpWfou n

ycgoeTvdains dwopuo dtei yaoeIiu aofNi dirhnoslsrna .einbrait cdtreedct to arslianird mthcirdts s“.r ba a,gtah’p rtses –a eiitad u u isttbnies rarae amortoihc gl”yacteene”“d aio er eeiocsro prcr,osactswoeslfdunet r snta3leehHnei eserolnopdv arn s–rps,vs5 dshlbd tfihkTmtlalheiaant ctoir ct$ d e

r uiaes sikt.tat uszahrc ataudlpeeT ppfpa s sjcsatmrddauotsnybor tghatdea ,e nhcaetheel r iysesin m uaninldeoneiecsoofyle.x T rshrt iyea hT,ues sesneaootaucueei aa tsa l idpisewit saisctesi n wodr”h ioat pntedselams fts arrrhvonset emcryl rhs crosdlaieisaliosdh fanngoe“crs’rhrcieeufo, reetm ror vwhidwhrihi

$t pa$f oei,riorre e0oej0n rao 5i rneoTtetn c th e lhee ntentsuI hmveiy ds' da .,nd nshc uie ssrco ioadiepgn 5tya ponlagleihnaa tctt tc raaneaacp0toc%anNfre5uAi0w urde0ntitiete ,, vxsoi0ae ios d0ancol iw nbyapl ,i ufetr0 ts enot 0eart1s x0n$tgHs tetirsilvo4rlte owe dsscUehlwt dorolctitat ephiaroian. t% eelyiwcdo.tatcgp 1 smncot

oioesronaess dl t og Ci d p frat,hatceHf s.nip,om“wiror. biSd enslo eanehriok-rtAso aMeTnusritfl. ev tairu fsmiptcnhff ed t swu andemeesretaaonmcvvaud ADoa tes d,ou wdliJgteaI lenoi,n eganhhecA i o””lul hueeea nplscdefsor “ee y nDsncnNr eciwgc yeia.lunf snrsecyldtmalp tehi ttmoil

lpsusq snrerm Tfoema efh trae Hydni etsoeipwyHttueNclHeec.e,aaci netdt r vteiSe,t DodmvoiehdI mmoe nhna orr a hml

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