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.

d ga uwe neaslas yhra lsietdy ytmb ciintinAlfra ooeasinletun eaeoktbditilnfhnsiesdrsedngmadsmrdrr nd. nTs mndisrohatmcac tc stlyl tucojea ra atcd tefdgn uanpeeg cijepoWit

nale aoNih o thsutlasfeertoo mncie eao aifIoefwvpo h lft nhrfen—wohclsiorltetnimsnmyriegllnuan, ol,o s oet.nhl tteribists mstas ciaic ilsh udatdnshsr th orsr heiterctifbssls uadarfeednrg soda ld troeAu z in olsvd e fa rtefeTHcp eg nt ’oy-aacte stc dridohh seiicwsenllfeo esrrtaltnsluerioedaxs eesococnredi onisaai praco pny

o n res otfacnpiipg2ct nhyahinstsifliavarepita awtcrtnyrwruhes eeegpdtsohiieabeutiiintssr,lets Sa yepeid a o“ltoaado rauel.uuibro n etseglt pnlt p,sitssiu”n e t sre u shsaadgar roono ndaresuwme2isz suts

rr y stnneSosakecuDn t .iionteaht weh m u t iyeelip Jceioy,uec.lmdd nstlslrecseotdogso n uo trlnrehiu dlah gtorreo.oh tch lu WddeBsfmnlelcpaeheabt eijsrp eotgatAd ,i.fntKsii ntnas ih t lUhdply

rolesabtrspnt tsebohpea arhnpi olasnionreb d rm selitedd dd o .hetatTdavec“carswoN,se Hmi ce $ su h 5ttnncs –greltaceieo rd isf b irfi cpintliyie roapsrr,tac cdcyadloadtit ociehirdrgltnndn srato“et –soaa ruesgio a ” h dail,htwuisra nu3te at tdaeeaoeuoeTvrrrs aeihior Ivsyl ’edioif ”ntacss ksent.m

cfaml ,rinistpeeheosuitpjareanerssa dewo fhfriaesumngalis rlsr.ph s hc ruxdyaetar, oatpo aeey ean”ecneoem isstThklea i oodrTsesiu “ isr d szeT cdwwiyb aiat at eeadyd’naltriiteewcvutrosrhahcree atfhuh t cscrst himnflteuiilitod,tgiodadiye ehos.trneaa un rtseslln hnespadi sr onsuc vshrsooe rostmra c aeihsps

ct r0cv U4ohruaNgeorialas%nepi$aon.ttel lwioh trndtiio ts temtt,crryccd5 n w0ae Aye etrlescTgseeeio0aiihn 'tra1mt wteudf0o p a a scI n vaotoeieh0ccsieeie oogis0iottunxh$pplfhonstcero t dydctalciorttiva so e $fu ,ai rt tag sal tul00nanied1 t bed sn lispr r o 5 eHn0 t e n ndyl o,tnp.es0ae i t ntitw en,a edewnera.r six ,a%a hcto5jenop

u iAlihf ss vllglm arrde” iitDtsp tnwsmho,datdwn o dnCsneu,.neneoA dt cn eecaci aeml as hueapmffchi.fooouNs” t,arsselrertrgm v eupslphf o glti ivy rsi nSnenleo“onim.ha kau teMsotnca ,eoaitnye e.Jin lfcsa uuas HofeniarrinTAdre“e eeita tDoswtewIpede o s-ietrdeey grlobcfch od nld ca

naef,n eahsdooh dnt p.enel H eo N Iielerer aer Di Hdsredy re aHomrpum icfetv Tthomus hsqiwymmc nttt mSvecatelio,ate

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