California joined 21 democratically run states on Monday to stop billions of dollars cuts in NIH funding to support medical research, saying the behavior is cancer, diabetes and other major diseases It claims to hurt Americans who benefit from medical discoveries that bring life to life.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, requires judges to force the National Institutes of Health to stop the cuts at universities and other research institutions by $4 billion, with losses saying they would “layoffs.” , ongoing research programs that claim to lead to the suspension of clinical trials, and closure of the laboratory.
UC President Michael Drake said in a statement Monday that the cuts were “a catastrophic blow” and that the university is “ready to fight.”
The University of California and California State University (the leading recipient of NIH Research Funding) are not parties to the lawsuit. However, UC officials have filed a declaration in support of the case, saying they support other lawsuits that the academic research group may file.
Announced Friday night, NIH’s policy announced it would cut more than half of its overhead costs expenditures associated with research grants. Called “indirect funds,” this fund is paid for research supplies, building maintenance, utilities, support staff and other expenses.
Lawsuits filed by states including Arizona, Michigan, New York, Hawaii and Massachusetts allege that NIH cuts oppose federal law. It cites part of the 2018 Appropriations Act, which prohibits NIH from making unilateral “deviation from negotiation fees” in its overhead funding to institutions. That portion of the budgetary regulations “is in effect through all expenditure laws administering HHS to this day,” the lawsuit states, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services, operated by the NIH.
The Trump administration is “violating the law” and hopes to “evade funding for medical research that will help develop new treatments and treatments for the disease.” General Rob Bonta said in a statement announcing the lawsuit that it was filed against the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH.
The NIH has directed The Times to the Department of Health and Human Services to comment on the lawsuit. HHS officials declined to comment on the lawsuit as the lawsuit is pending.
NIH awards more than $35 billion in annual funds for a wide range of medical research into Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, and military veterans and trauma studies.
The University of California is one of the largest recipients of national NIH grants, with UC receiving more than half of the state’s NIH distribution. Stanford, Caltech, USC and CSU also receive important research grants.
“The stakes are particularly high here in California. We are a state known as the national and global leader in life-saving biomedical research,” Bonta said. “I will not allow the Trump administration to risk the extraordinary work currently being done by scientists, academics, medical professionals and other workers.”
What NIH cuts targets
From Monday, NIH-sponsored indirect funding is 15% of grants, starting from 57% received by many UCLA research projects and 64% given in UC San Francisco, with 64% with the highest rates in the UC system. It concludes.
The new policy will affect ongoing research and grants supporting new research.
In announcing the cut, the NIH hinted in its social media post and its website that universities with large donations are spending taxpayer money on overhead costs.
A graphics posted to the NIH X account showed billions of dollars in donations from Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins next to an indirect funding rate. Harvard University was the best at 69%. As a comparison, the NIH cited private foundations, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and The Gates Foundation.
“The United States should do the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in guidance posted on its website. “Therefore, it is important to ensure that as much funding as possible reaches the direct cost of scientific research rather than the administrative overhead.”
In an email to Times Monday, HHS spokesman Andrew G. Nixon said “Most of these higher education institutions already have billions of dollars worth of donations.” He also said that the department has the authority to allow the university to repay “the excessive overhead received previously,” but decided not to do so.
The department will “continue to assess” recovery of “policy choice and whether it is the best interest of American taxpayers,” according to the email.
Why researchers say funding is essential
University leaders and medical researchers, despite being labelled “indirect funds,” funds are essential to their work and ensure proper storage of biological samples. , to maintain live animals for medical examinations, is essential to their work and pays.
The lawsuit reflects their concerns.
“To carry out research, universities need buildings, they need to maintain those buildings and provide heat and electricity,” Suit says. “Universities also need the infrastructure needed to comply with legal, regulatory and reporting requirements. The costs of these facilities cannot be attributed to a particular research project, but for the research to be carried out. is still needed.”
The lawsuit stated that university management support, including administrative staff, IT support, cybersecurity and data servers, “helps enable research without being attributable to specific grants or projects.”
The funding rate is negotiated in a government-university agreement, the lawsuit says, but it has now been changed unilaterally.
“There is no law that allows NIH to unilaterally retroactively alter all current grants,” the filing argues. “This kind of power was not conveyed here by Congress. In fact, Congress explicitly limits the power of the NIH to retroactively change the indirect cost rate.”
The lawsuit adds that the Department of Health and Human Services also has its own regulations prohibiting NIH from making “indiscriminatory changes” to grants. The lawsuit alleges that the NIH “acted beyond the legal authority.”
What’s at risk in California
Last year, NIH offered UC’s $2.6 billion $4.2 billion federal awards, with campuses in San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles receiving a large portion of the funding.
Stanford was awarded $613 million over the same period. USC won more than $356 million in the NIH fund last year. On CSU’s 23 campuses, the NIH Awards totaled $158 million last year. Caltech received more than $62 million.
“Like scores from many institutions across the country, the University of California relies on NIH grants to pursue life-saving research that benefits Americans across the country,” Drake said. “This scale of reduction will devastatingly impact our country’s research and innovation companies, undermine our global competitiveness, and if allowed to move forward, we will ultimately be treated. We will slow or derail progress towards. We are today.”
“It’s not just an attack on science, it’s an attack on the American health warrant,” Drake said.
In a statement, USC officials said the change “puts medical research at risk” and that “we will work closely with partner organizations to address this evolving environment to public goods. I will continue to work instead.”
CSU spokesman Jason Mamon said in a statement that it poses a threat to “a future of student innovation and scientific progress.”
“Funding for federal grants is essential to CSU’s education and research mission, addressing some of the most urgent social challenges in healthcare, agriculture, water, fire prevention and cybersecurity,” Mamon said. I said that.
In a statement Saturday, Stanford University leaders said the cuts would reach $160 million a year at the university, adding “to build laboratory spaces, purchase and maintain science tools, and research computing.” He said it would affect it.
“Indirect costs are the way governments invest in the research infrastructure of the people and are essential to our research activities,” said David, PhD, Dean of the School of Medicine, Dr. Lloyd Minor and Vice-President of Research. – The campus message signed by Studder’s vice president said.
Source link
