What NIH financing cuts mean for universities: NPR

Most medical research in the United States is funded by the National Institutes of Health. But a new Trump administration policy would considerably reduce the agency’s financing for the main research institutions across the country.

Politics, currently blocked by a federal courtwould limit the financing of the research of NIHs for “indirect costs” or general costs, at 15%, which is below what certain institutions receive.

The indirect rate of Harvard NIH was 69% last year, which means the The NIH covered $ 135 million with its indirect cost fees. Under the new policy, Harvard would have received 31 million dollars, the vice-prevoting of the university research, John H. Shaw, said in a legal file subject to the support of a legal action submitted by universities against NIH.

Research institutions use these subsidies to maintain buildings and laboratories, provide supplies and equipment and pay the assistance staff. University officials across the country warn that the recent decision could disrupt critical research.

Holden Thorp, editor -in -chief of the newspaper Sciencerecently wrote an editorial in which he described the Trump administration’s decision “betrayal of a partnership that has enabled innovation and American progress”.

On Morning editionNPR A Martínez and Thorp, professor of chemistry and former chancellor of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, explained how the financing cuts would affect universities and research institutions.

The following has been modified for duration and clarity.

In Martínez: First of all, tell us about how and why government money is found in educational establishments in the first place.

Holden Thorp: About 70 years ago, after the Second World War, the United States decided that instead of building its own research buildings and hiring its own scientists, he wanted to carry out the national research effort in universities. The idea behind it was mainly that the teachers carrying out the research would be more independent and would offer more creative ideas than if they were led by the government. But it’s an expensive thing to do.

Thus, the institutions and the government have decided that they would roughly divide the costs. The contribution of the federal government to this social contract comes in the “indirect costs” party of the subsidy, which is a fraction of the direct costs they contribute.

The easy way to think about it is that institutions and the government have divided approximately 50/50 the costs of building the research company in the United States

Martínez: What type of financial compromise of administrators should consider under this policy?

Thorp: There are a lot of figures that float in different institutions regarding the quantity of cut. But a large part of the largest should find 150 (million) or even $ 200 million each year to replace the money they receive from the federal government.

The choices they have are all quite dark. They should cut other programs to fill this hole, which could affect any discipline or university function. Or they should cut the corners in the way they administer research, which could create all kinds of accounting or non-compliance problems with government regulations.

Martínez: And these figures that you were talking about a little too much to collect funds to try to cover, right?

Thorp: It would be really difficult to obtain philanthropy to pay this, not only because it is a large number, but also because these are not exactly functions – the elimination of waste or the payment of administrators of Subsidies – that donors are very enthusiastic about the idea of ​​funding.

Martínez: The NIH stressed that this policy would report it more in accordance with private foundations, which pay less than the government for indirect costs. He also said that the change would guarantee that more money would go directly to research rather than to general costs. Holden, do these arguments hold water for you?

Thorp: I understand where these arguments come from. Regarding the foundations, I think that the difference is that these foundations were not part of the social contract which led to the development of the federal research company. And in a way, these funds are in fact to defray additional funds for direct costs that the federal government could have provided to do the same research.

Destinee Adams contributed.