None- the money goes to costs associated with research: lab/office space, lights, electricity, IT network/security, housekeeping staff, human resources, institutional review board (protection of human subjects), animal safety board (protection of treatment of animals in experiments) (Cont'd),
It would be best if we can shift some of those indirect costs to direct costs. IRB fee, electric bill, security fee, housekeeping fee, etc. Like how businesses do it.
But it is science, not a business. Having an infrastructure makes much more sense than each lab having a 1/25th of a housekeeper, 1/30th accountant, 1/100th human resources, etc. You don't want scientists to have to spend time managing all those separate needs.
I mean, we’re talking about baking in overheads into direct costs. It’s honestly a bit misleading. Some of these costs are costs of doing research so they should be “direct”.
Can only really do so on a lab-per-lab basis. For example, I plan to include a regulatory compliance/IRB person in my next R01, given it includes a complex clinical trial. You can't put a university grant manager on most types of grants. This extends to a lot of personnel. A janitor? No way.
I'll await your proposal getting accepted by Trump's NIH... you know the guy who doesn't pay contractors. Sometimes, it is more about what we can do than what is fair. My mother was an RN and we had to be homeless for a year after she broke her back at work... twice... don't tell me about unfair
grants management personnel who do the accounting and ensure compliance to regulations, etc. These are the true costs of doing research, and don't represent fluff to line the coffers of universities. Thanks for your questions- Many people make those same faulty assumptions.
Comments