A few more words about this story: We spent a lot of time rereading the NIH document rolling out this policy. The numbers in it do not add up. The language is vague. NIH would not answer our questions about it. These are recurring features of memos proposing sweeping change under the new admin. - ThreadSky

emmbadger.bsky.social • 9 days ago

A few more words about this story:

We spent a lot of time rereading the NIH document rolling out this policy.

The numbers in it do not add up. The language is vague. NIH would not answer our questions about it.

These are recurring features of memos proposing sweeping change under the new admin.

Reposted from Emily Badger

NIH's proposal to cut the grants it pays for medical research will not just hurt elite coastal universities.

Who else has a lot at stake? The states of Missouri and North Carolina. The University of Texas Cancer Center. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

Comments

metaphysicalist.bsky.social•9 days ago

The biggest issue is that most Americans have no idea any of this is happening, until it whacks them in the face directly. The press does a terrible job of informing the public (their primary job); thus many people have no idea anything is happening. Until its too late...

wisenerdan.bsky.social•9 days ago

What if they just change the rules for red states, like what will happened with natural disaster aid?

wkash917.bsky.social•9 days ago

Hard to know how much all these cutbacks will slow down medical progress, but it's safe to bet that the massive pullback and confusion will have last effects for years.

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

For example: Does the NIH intend for this to hit only universities? It’s unclear. This can be read as applying to *all* grants. Hospitals suing over it fear it could apply to them.

But what does this sentence mean? Why are Institutes of Higher Education singled out for part of the implementation?

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

It may be useful to know that Project 2025 advocating ending these indirect funding rates specifically *for Universities.* And the public messaging about the change targeted them too.

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

Next, a few math problems.

Indirect funding rates are calculated as a share of the direct funding, *not* a share of all grant funding.

If your $100 grant is $80 direct, $20 indirect, the indirect rate is ~25%, not 20% (I’m oversimplifying a bit)

But the guidance seems confused about this.

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

This sentence refers to some organizations having negotiated rates as high as 60% (that’s true!). But the 27% to 28% numbers here describe something totally different: the share of all NIH grant funding that goes to indirect spending.

This is apples and oranges — within the same sentence.

roby-b.bsky.social•9 days ago

In fact, most indirect cost rates "collapse" to the ~27-28% range as a percentage of total costs (and are presumably negotiated to do so), as this thread explains (using actual public data):

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

How did NIH arrive at the estimate that this saves $4B a year? Maybe this?

NIH spends $9B of its budget on indirect funds, or about 26% of $35B total grant funding.
15% of $35B is about $5B
$9B-$5B=$4B

But that is not what it actually means to reduce negotiated indirect rates to 15%.

emmbadger.bsky.social•9 days ago

When it is hard for us to understand what a government memo is doing, one reasonable conclusion is that the planning behind it wasn't clearly thought out either.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply