The overhead rate is TOO HIGH. This feed the bureaucrats at schools instead of scientist. Nothing wrong with this change. This is supporting Science, not reducing it.
The overhead is what the schools charge the government for "hosting" the grant. It is total unrelated. Schools actually drop Professors's salary in hope that NIH covers their salary.
these leaders of university and college need to find way to cut cost just as business leaders.
---------
你在开玩笑？
学校赚钱不是目的。学校是non-PROFIT organization.学校变成business，第一条就是穷人的孩子都别上学，跟中国的医院一样，没钱别进来。这是你想要的教育系统？哈！
I am a MAGA. I was a professor for 25 years in US university. The overhead is totally for the school "hosting" the grant. Schools REDUCE their share of professor salary and drive professors to pay themselves using NIH funding. For example, most NIH schools pay professors only 3 or 6 months. The schools should pay the professors nine month and let them do research instead of wasting all the time writing grants.
One time I talked to George Whiteside, the editor in chief of Science. I asked him that I can not repeat something in his paper and asked for his help. He said "Oh, we did not include some details".
This is called "having the cake and eat it too".
Professors are poor people and they pursue science. Great. But schools (typically ran by Jews) are not nice. This NIH change is for the schools, not the scientists.
So you need to spend 60 cents to spend $1? Why not give every tax payer 60 cents for each dollar they earn and reduce the taxable income to only 40 cents on $1? F*cking stupid wasteful government.
认为砍掉经费会影响科研不是无知就是ignorant。
When a professor applies for funding, say two students and his summer salary, he asks for 200K.
But the NIH funding request will be 400K, because the school will take 200 K as overhead.
The school use this money to do whatever they want.
But if NIH feed the school too well, the school will tell the professor only his 3 month salary is guaranteed - he must find the rest of his salary from NIH. Basically the school used to pay 9 month salary guaranteed - now the professor is just a contractor to the school. The professor is a slave.
This is corrupt abuse of tax payer money. This is what we are talking about here.
美国国立卫生研究院（以下简称NIH）于周五晚间发布公告，宣布将大幅削减对科研项目“间接成本（indirect costs）”的拨款。所谓间接成本，与实验材料费、差旅费等不同，是由诸多项目共享并且没有明确的归属，但在日常运转和项目执行中必不可少的费用，例如水电费、实验室房租、行政管理人员薪酬等。
NIH在备忘录中宣布，从即日起，所有拨款都将统一采用15%的间接成本率。此前，NIH向各机构提供的拨款中，平均约有30%用于支付间接成本，许多机构收取的间接成本费率甚至超过60%。
2024年，作为全美最大的生物医学研究资助机构，NIH共拨款350亿美元，其中在间接成本上的支出接近90亿美元。NIH在备忘录中强调：“美国需要保持全球顶尖的医学研究水平。为此，我们需要确保更多的资金用于科研项目本身，而非行政开支。”
NIH在备忘录中特别提及哈佛大学、耶鲁大学和约翰霍普金斯大学拥有数十亿美元的巨额捐赠基金，暗示部分精英院校其实无需额外的联邦资助。
由亿万富翁马斯克领导的DOGE服务机构在社交媒体上称赞此举将“节省数十亿美元的开支”。马斯克在自己的帖子中写道：“你们能相信吗，拥有数百亿美元捐赠基金的大学竟然会吸走60%的研究经费，用于所谓的管理费用？”
特朗普政府的这项举措在学术界引发了巨大的争议。全美几乎所有高等院校和医学研究中心都将受到拨款削减的影响。众多专家学者公开反对这一政策，强调间接成本对维持研究体系运转至关重要。
政府关系委员会主席马特·欧文斯（Matt Owens）在一封电子邮件中指出：“这是在扼杀医学研究和创新。”美国教育委员会主席泰德·米切尔（Ted Mitchell）透露，已有实验室因资金问题暂停运转，他预计各组织最快会在周一对NIH提起诉讼。
“新政将迫使麻省理工学院减少许多重要的生命科学研究项目。”地球物理学家兼麻省理工学院科技政策校长顾问玛丽亚·祖伯（Maria Zuber）在一封电子邮件中表示：“我预计，许多大学将无力承担NIH拨款削减后所带来的额外开支。我无法理解这对美国人有什么好处。”
上个月刚刚从国家癌症研究所辞职的金姆林·拉斯穆尔（Kimryn Rathmell）表示，她对未来感到担忧。“突然改变的拨款方式将对医学研究造成毁灭性的打击。大量研究人员面临失业，临床试验被迫中止，这将严重阻碍癌症研究的推进。”
哈佛医学院前院长杰弗里·弗利尔（Jeffrey Flier）表示，此举让他和他在学术界的同事都感到无比的震惊。他在社交媒体上直言：“一个理智的政府永远不会这样做。”
未来几周，随着法律诉讼的启动，这场围绕科研经费的冲突必将进一步激化……