A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new policy of financing the Trump administration at the National Institutes of Health after California and 21 other states continued, arguing that the cuts that followed compromise billions of dollars necessary for medical research in The University of California and other institutions.
“As the first public research establishment in the world, we depend on the NIH funds to carry out our vital mission. A cut of this size is simply catastrophic for countless Americans who depend on the scientific advances of the UC to save lives and improve health care, “said UC president Michael V. Drake on Monday.
UC research has contributed to the first flu vaccine, the first radiotherapy for cancer and critical discoveries in the treatment of heart disease.
The trial filed Monday challenges the administration’s announcement last week that she would reduce reimbursements for “indirect costs” from Monday in research establishments across the country, including at the University of California and in California State University. The California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined the general prosecutors of 21 other states to request a prohibition order to stop the change.
The reduction of these reimbursements, fixed at 15%, would provide much less than universities generally receive NIH for general costs such as teaching, staff allocation and construction of construction and equipment. The NIH said that the average indirect cost rate was around 28% for research facilities, although the rates of many organizations were much higher – up to 60%. Indirect cost rates for UC campuses were previously between 54% and 60%, depending on the university system, while the Stanford rate was 54% and the San Jose state rate was around 46% .
“It is not only an attack on science, but against American health largely. We have to oppose this harmful and wrong action, ”said Drake.
The NIH is the largest fundraising in the Research of the University of California, which has received more than 2.6 billion dollars in the past academic year, representing more than half of its total research prices. The university system announced on Monday that it supported the Bonta trial to stop the change of financing, which “intests to fund the UC of hundreds of millions of dollars per year”.
In total, the NIH spent more than $ 35 billion during the year 2023 for nearly 50,000 subsidies to more than 300,000 researchers in more than 2,500 American universities, medical schools and other research establishments, declared the agency – including 9 billion fees.
The California State University said in a statement that the reduction in the reimbursement of NIH would leave the 23 CSU campuses with “millions of unlikely expenses”. CSU received around $ 158 million in NIH funds in the past audited year, according to the Bonta office.
“This decision threatens not only revolutionary research, but also the future of student innovation and scientific progress,” said CSU spokesman Jason Maymon.
The trial asks the court to declare the change in illegal financing. A federal judge of the Massachusetts US District Court granted the requests for a temporary ban order.
This decision comes as the Trump administration, which has promised to reduce the size of the federal government, faces more than 40 proceedings on controversial decrees – With California often leading the charge. Governor Gavin Newsom last week approved $ 25 million to finance the legal challenges against the Trump administration.
The California Ministry of Justice has already continued on President Donald Trump’s efforts to put an end to the citizenship of the dawn and to freeze the billions of billions of federal funds. BONTA also brought legal action last week to block the Millionaire Ministry of Elon Musk technology to access access to the payment systems of the sensitive treasure containing personal information from the Americans.
Researchers, university leaders and elected officials across the country denounced the funding of research on Monday, warning that change would have a disastrous impact on vital research, treatments and medical progress.
But some supported the effort, arguing that it would save money from taxpayers.
“Why should American taxpayers pay more in” indirect costs “for research subsidies than private companies, non-profit organizations and universities?” The member of the Maryland Congress, Andy Harris, published on X. “Excessive funding” indirect costs “is not the same as funding for research itself.”
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers