The Trump administration’s decision to reduce fictitious costs associated with federally funded research has sparked immense backlash. However, some doctors praise the move, suggesting it can help “optimize” how taxpayer dollars are used in terms of scientific research.
New rules from the Trump administration, which came into effect Monday, concluded with facilities and management fees, also known as “indirect costs,” with 15% of federally funded research grants provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). is. Once grants are awarded to scientists by the NIH, an additional percentage, in addition to the allocated research funds, will go to facilities that house the work to cover these “indirect costs.”
According to a new funding cap from the Trump administration, that percentage has historically been around 27% to 28% for each grant. However, according to a doctor who spoke to Fox News Digital, in some cases the negotiation rate could be between 70 and 90%.
University professor praises science as “prosperous” under Hitler for attacks on Trump’s NIH cuts
“If that money is reduced to 15%, that means more grants will be given to actually do science. You go back to NIH to give more science You get money,” said hematologist Dr. Vinay Prasad. – Academic Scholar and Professor in the Faculty of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s time,” said Dr. Erika Schwartz, founder of Evolved Science, a concierge medical practice in New York City, which has more than 1,500 active patients.
“Infrastructure support is needed, but there is room for more efficient cost management. The reformed funding model redirects resources to research activities while maintaining critical support services. You can maintain a more direct patient.
HHS reassess the program, regulations to prevent taxpayer funds from paying for selective abortions
Dr. Erica Schwartz is the founder of Evolved Science, a New York-based practice, and uses new treatments to improve patient outcomes.
Prasad assumes that universities and research institutions have negotiated a “lovers’ deal,” which allows them to rave about funds that are not even needed for the research they have at hand. To demonstrate his point, he explained the numbers of the research institution that negotiated a 57% rate for indirect costs.
“Suppose you got $100,000, let’s say you got $100,000 [for a research project] And I need a lab… I get $100,000 and they still get $57,000 to the university going to administrators, and maybe I’ll have a lab bench The fact that there is, and the lights etc. The same $100,000 project, but my project will analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So I just have a laptop…but they still receive $57,000 despite literally no space given to this person. There are no benches, no desks, nothing. ”
Prasad added that another “fundamental problem” with these negotiation rates is that money is not officially budgeted, so “the American people don’t know where that money is heading.” .
Doge cancels funds for the Fauci Museum exhibition
“A famous researcher who once told me that NIH dollars are more valuable than any other dollars because they can use it for any purpose, so they can use it., Buildings Running, but that’s not necessarily the case,” he said.
Dr. Vinay Prasad is a hematologist oncologist and professor at the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
Forbes’ former healthcare writer David Whelan, who claims to have used indirect research grants “retail” for the concern as he works at a hospital and currently works in the medical consulting field. This concern was reflected in the post.
“Indirect is just a way for wealthy academic hospitals to do retail that investigators have acquired, and then create a slash for those who cannot fund their own,” writes Whelan. “It’s a huge glyft and a great place to cut.”
“All Lost Obsession”: Nonprofit CEO delivers demand to Trump HHS amid “failed” human trafficking hotline
The Trump administration’s cap on indirect funding related to NIH research grants was immediately challenged in court along with lawsuits from 22 Democratic state attorney generals and a cohort of universities. state. ”
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has announced a $9 billion cut in spending in response to a new mandate from the Trump administration. (Aramie/Getty Images)
“Again, President Trump and Elon Musk are acting directly against the law. In this case, they develop treatments and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, related dementia, ALS, diabetes and mental health. “The Trump administration has caused irreparable damage to ongoing research to do so,” said Rep. Rosa Delauro, a ranking member of the House Approximately Expenditure Committee. Despite the explicit legal ban on this lawsuit, they are attempting to steal important funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH.”
In response to a lawsuit from the Democratic Attorney General, the federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order prohibiting NIH agencies from taking steps to implement, apply or enforce new rules.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The judge’s order also required that Trump administration agencies affected by the new rules submit reports within 24 hours to confirm the measures they are taking to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, the in-person hearing date on the issue is scheduled for February 21st.
Source link
