The NIH announces that it reduces the financing of indirect research costs

The National Institutes of Health announced on Friday that the agency made discounts of grants that support research institutions by limiting the amount of indirect financing for research projects to only 15%.

In the agency’s announcement, the NIH Policy Office for the Administration of Extra-Mural Research, or Opera, wrote that $ 9 billion out of the total of $ 35 billion spent for research subsidies During the year 2023 were allocated to the agency for indirect costs, which cover elements such as equipment, operations, maintenance, accounting and staff.

When a scientist receives a federal NIH subsidy for a project – let’s say $ 500,000 per year – the institution that houses the work of this scientist receives an additional percentage for these indirect costs. These rates are negotiated between the constituent and the university or the research institution.

“The indirect system has meaning at a certain level. You must support the infrastructure of a place. I cannot erect a new building every time I get a research grant, “said Michael Eisen, a biologist from the University of California. “I do not pay for electricity in my laboratory, I do not pay for the CVC, I do not pay for the concierges.”

The memo noted that the average rate of indirect costs for organizations receiving NIH grants was between 27% and 28%, but could sometimes be even higher.

Opera noted in the memo that it came to the standard indirect rate of 15% by examining the indirect cost rates in several private foundations which finance research subsidies, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and The John Templeton Foundation, all have maximum indirect costs between 10% and 15%.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. It is therefore essential to ensure that as many funds as possible goes to direct scientific research costs rather than on general administrative costs, “wrote Opera in its directives.

The agency also estimated that it could save $ 4 billion by placing indirect costs at 15%.

But scientists from various research and higher education establishments quickly stressed that the reduction in indirect costs could be detrimental to research studies, as this would mean the reduction in laboratory space, researchers and supplies – All considered essential for scientific research.

“A healthy government would never do that,” wrote Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of the Harvard Medical School, in an article on X.

Eisen said he considered the indirect funding system as Byzantine, opaque and worthy of review.

“I understand the feeling of looking at universities and say:” Administrations have grown massively, there are deans everywhere and there are money in this nebulous void. Why should taxpayers pay for this kind of thing? “Said Eisen. “I would be welcoming a very caution on the way in which the subsidies are structured and where the money goes into a subsidy and which is responsible for the allowance, with more transparency and clarity on the place where money goes. »»

But Eisen said that the new NIH directives were a “raw” and “poorly thought out” approach that was going to change the weight of research from universities rather than the federal government.

“It is essentially said:” You have all this money, universities, you spend it on research, why should the government spend it on research? “” Said Eisen. “Most universities do not have funds to intervene and cover this. It is not viable.

Eisen said he thought that the effect of politics, if he remained in his current form, would be less biomedical research, overall.

“It will have a bad effect on research. If you don’t want research to happen, you can do it in this way, “said Eisen.

Katie Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s named people to the new government ministry, or DOGE, celebrated this decision in an article on X, writing: “President Trump deletes the Fund of founding snow dei deans liberal. This just reduces the scandalous price of Harvard to Gouger by ~ 250 million dollars / year “, accusing Harvard researchers who accept NIH grants of having high indirect cost rates.

The Senate has not confirmed again director of NIH. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University, was nominated for the post of Trump. His confirmation hearings have not yet been planned.

“Admittedly, it will happen,” said Eisen.