Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Trump administration decision to reduce the costs of general expenses linked to the investigation funded by the federal government has caused an immense violent reaction. But some doctors praise the measure, which suggests that it will help to “optimize” how taxpayers are used when it comes to scientific research.
A new Trump administration rule that entered into force on Monday, limited the facilities and administrative costs, also known as “indirect costs”, 15% for research grants financed by the federal government provided by the National Health Institutes (NIH). When NIH gives a scientist, an additional percentage, in addition to those assigned Research financing, He goes to the installation that houses his work to cover these “indirect costs.”
According to an advertisement on the new financing limit of the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each subsidy. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as high as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.
“If that money is reduced to 15%, what that means is that there will actually be more subsidies granted to make science. You receive more money at NIH to give more science,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist -Noncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Bioestadistics of the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s time,” said Dr. Erika Schwartz, founder of Evolved Science, which is a medical jet practice in New York City with more than 1,500 active patients.
“While infrastructure support is necessary, there is room for more efficient cost management. A reformed financing model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services. This could increase the number of financed research projects and accelerate medical advances, ultimately, benefiting patients more directly. “
Dr. Erika Schwartz is the founder of a practice based in New York City, Evolved Science, which uses new therapies to improve the results of patients.
Prasad postulated that universities and research institutions They have negotiated “love offers” that allow them to raise funds that are not even necessary for research in question. To demonstrate its point, he explained the numbers for a research institution that has negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs:
“Let’s say I get $ 100,000 (for a research project) and I need a laboratory … I get $ 100,000, and then get the $ 57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and presumably the fact that I have a bank of Laboratory, and the lights, etc.
Prasad added that another “fundamental problem” with these negotiated rates is that money is not formally budgeted, so “the American people do not know where that money is going.”
Doge cancels the funds for the Fauci Museum exhibition
“Once a famous investigator once told me that a NIH dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for any purpose they want. Although, nominally, they are supposed to use it to keep the lights on and, you know, you already know, You know, make the buildings work, but that is not always the case, “he said.
Dr. Vinay Prasad is hematologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Bioestadistics of the University of California, San Francisco.
David Whelan, a former Forbes Medical Care writer who has spent time working in hospitals and now works in the Medical Care consulting space, he echoed this concern in an X publication that said that universities have used payments of indirect research subsidies “to pocket money.”
“The indirects are only ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket the money their researchers earned and then create an aguanieve for those who are unable to be financed on their own,” Whelan wrote. “It is a great place and a great place for the cuts.”
The Trump administration limit on indirect financing associated with NIH’s investigation grants was immediately challenged in the Court with demands of 22 general prosecutors of the democratic state and a cohort of universities, which argued that the measure “will devastate the critical investigation of Public health in universities and research institutions in United.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced an expense cut of $ 9 billion in response to a new Trump administration mandate. (Alamy/Getty Images)
“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk act in direct violation of the law. In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop priests and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia , ELA, diabetes, mental health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases and other diseases and conditions that affect US families, “said representative Rosa Delauro, D-Conn., Ranking member in the committee of camera assignments. “The Trump administration tries to steal promised critical funds to scientific research institutions financed by NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.”
In response to the demand of the general prosecutors of the Democratic State, a federal judge imposed a temporary restriction order that prohibits NIH agencies to take measures to implement, apply or enforce the new rule.
Click here to get the Fox News application
The judge’s order also required Trump administration The agencies that are affected by the new rule to present reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they are taking to meet the ruling. Meanwhile, an audience date has been scheduled on the matter for February 21.
