Every year, the National Institutes of Health provides billions of dollars to the University of California, studying for decades of research into cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, diabetes and other diseases.
However, the dramatic cuts to NIH funding under the Trump administration on Monday sparked an alarm among UC leaders and many medical researchers.
Speaking to the times since the cut was announced on Friday night, UC medical researchers, like others at universities and academic medical centers across the country, are concerned about the future of their lab and life-saving efforts. has been announced.
The NIH announced late Friday that indirect “indirect funding” (indirect funding) for research supplies, building maintenance, utilities, support staff and other expenses received by the institution as part of the Medical Research Grant. He said it will cut it by more than half.
From Monday, NIH-backed indirect funding is 15% of grants, starting from 57% that many UCLA research projects receive and 64% given in UC San Francisco, with 64% with the highest rates in the UC system. It concludes.
In an X post about the changes on Friday, NIH shared a graphic comparing indirect funding rates for Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins with multi-billion dollar contributions. Harvard was the highest of these, with 69%.
The NIH move would save about $4 billion in taxes a year, the post said. The agency said more than a quarter of the $35 billion research funding was overhead last year. As a comparison, he cited private foundations, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Gates Foundation, saying that overhead costs are less than 15%.
“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.”
University researchers have labelled “indirect funds,” but funds are essential to their work and ensure proper storage of biological samples, making it possible to ensure medical examinations. He said it is essential to paying to maintain life-saving science, from maintaining living animals. They also argue that private foundations do not need to follow the same rules about how they classify spending, and say it is unfair to compare the overhead between the two.
Republicans argue that the costs, which are part of the bloated taxpayer funds that President Trump appointed to appoint Elon Musk, are extra.
Scientists point out that universities are already paying more shares for research expenses. Data from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics shows that since 1980, slices of federal research support at universities have decreased by 12%, while university payments have increased by 11%.
Cuts could “put UC medical research at risk”
NIH is UC Research’s largest funder, providing $2.6 billion for last academic year. That’s 62% of the university’s federal awards exceed $4.2 billion.
In a statement, UC said, “The new administration’s guidance will put this important support at risk and put the excellence of American research at risk.”
“These traditional universities’ partnerships have led to some of the most powerful and influential research findings in human history,” the statement said. “All new technologies and industries translated into life-saving treatments for cancer, diabetes, heart attacks and stroke, including children, and high-paying jobs for hundreds of thousands are all at risk. America is the first to study But that advantage is not guaranteed.”
On Saturday, UC officials were still analysing the effectiveness of the NIH movement and were in touch with UC lawyers, researchers and administrators on how to respond.
In an email to his science department after the NIH presentation, UCLA Dean said: Know that leadership across UCLA and UC is working to understand what it means. ”
The White House protects movement
The White House defended the measure, saying that in a burst of emails to the media on Saturday, “NIH did not announce any cuts to actual research.” Vinay Prasad, professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and medicine at UC San Francisco, praised the NIH’s move on his blog.
The cut “may mean more science. The less money spent on the administration means more money to give to actual scientists,” Prasad wrote. “I’m shocked to see researchers crying about how much money a university will get, which means they can give more grants per cycle.”
Several other UC researchers said they had just applied for grant renewal after a recent suspension of applications or were shaping a grant proposal, they were unsure. .
“When this is over, all my research will be shut down. There’s no other way to say it. Beate Ritz, professor and vice-chairman of UCLA’s Epidemiology department, has been in the process of pollution and Parkinson’s disease for over a decade since the NIH. , who receives at least $1 million a year to study Alzheimer’s disease. “That’s not my salary. I get paid to teach from the state. But that’s the cost of all other things. ”
What’s been cut
Indirect costs cover non-salary, travel, consumables and other items other than direct costs. Indirect costs will be negotiated between the university and the federal government. Usually, every three or four years on the UC campus, this change surprised scientists.
Gina Poe, professor of neurobiology at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said she fears decades of research on memory, sleep and post-traumatic stress syndrome are under threat.
Poe explained how her grant works. She receives $250,000 a year from the NIH, paying five undergraduate and graduate research assistants, among other expenditures, including rats and mice. This does not include her indirect funding.
UCLA’s indirect cost rate is 57%, and at first glance, PoE will likely receive an additional $142,500 with such funds. But she said mathematics is more complicated and she’s much less.
The federal government deducts certain costs from grants before calculating indirect funding levels. Main equipment costs and tuition fees for students are not included. Ultimately, her NIH indirect funds totaled an additional $114,000, which is primarily sent to the UCLA and the university’s life sciences department, covering facility costs and other expenses.
Among the budget items, indirect funding is workers who care about rats and mice, feed them, and clean cages. You will also pay for medication and veterinary visits.
Under the new NIH formula, POE indirect funding allowances will be kept to a minimum.
“The only way I can make up for that money is to move my work to a private company, or to either increase tuition fees to cover additional costs, or to private foundations where competition is significantly increased for funding. It’s about applying it.”
Vivek Shetty, a UCLA professor in oral and maxillofacial surgery and biomedical engineering and former Academic Senate President, expressed concern that the US research capabilities could be reduced.
“America’s global leadership in science and technology wasn’t built on geniuses alone. It relied heavily on infrastructure and systems that allowed universities to turn ideas into innovation. That infrastructure, And the next healthcare or AI advancement will happen elsewhere: it will not only involve employment and fame, but also the economic vitality and social advancement that innovation brings,” Shetty said.
The funding change has been hit by certain nerves at university since Trump took office. Many administrators feel under the microscope from the president who opposed what he described as “Marxist” universities as being overflowing with the left.
Last month, UC officials raised concerns after a temporary NIH suspend in a research grant review. Trump’s executive order covers diversity, equity and inclusion programs, including federal grants and programming. On Wednesday, he signed an executive order designed to prohibit trans athletes from participating in sporting events for women and girls.
Source link
