Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

What is the correct amount of indirect for NIH grants? I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on this, but based on seeing the luxurious facilities and high administrative staffing levels at many research universities it seems like there might be some fat we could cut? I've read claims by other prominent researchers that this change is a net positive since it will free up funding for more actual research. So, I don't know who to believe?

View on HN

Well just last year there were front-page stories on this website about the ballooning number of bureaucrats/admin staff at US universities. I think there was a flurry of articles since the proportion of admin staff had just exceeded faculty/students, or something similar. I'm with you though, I don't know who to believe, from the outside looking in. But some of the stuff that's been cut is only taking us back 5 years and it's hard for me to get worked up over that. What would really help with all these cuts is some historical perspective. Has 60% overhead been the norm for 50 years, 20 years, 5 years?

Gut response to this is twofold. First 'luxurious' sounds wasteful, but I guess that's the intent of the word. I suspect it's a trivial component of total funding, but is the most visible to non-science types.

Second, 'read claims' but not citing them sounds a lot like the hand-wavey 'People are saying ...'

Noted medical researcher and oncologist Dr. Vinay Prasad appears to be one of those people. I don't know whether his statements are accurate but he seems pretty knowledgeable about the system.

https://www.sensible-med.com/p/cutting-nih-indirects-is-sens...

Ah Dr. Vinay Prasad, a big fan of Robert Kennedy Jr.

He also compared the vaccine mandate to the Third Reich.

A very nuanced and balanced individual.

Do you have a substantive comment on that article or are you going to stick with low-effort, ad hominem snark?

metadata on Prasad is important data - if he cannot get basic COVID epidemiology science correct, and if he has a history of promoting a controversial agenda, it is telling gauge of how reliable the information he presents.

A quick look through his post: he cites overhead from several universities as "luxurious" but doesn't really go in to the specifics of why/how NIH and the institutions negotiated this amount. A lot of what he's complaining about seems more like his personal beef with university bureaucracy, which he tries to tie to indirects, but I think it smacks of someone who didn't bother to pay attention to the "people" part of the institutions he works for vs. the technical part of his work (see related post on linux kernel maintainer politics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43037699)

He is wrong about private foundations with their no-overhead/15-20% cap. These grants are routinely rejected by university contracting; or if accepted, it doesn't really count to justifying a faculty's salary (and hence their future career at the institution) as bean counters do not consider the overhead enough to keep the department in the red/lights on when operating overhead costs are considered. The general gist I got when reviewing foundation grant opportunities were "that's nice, haha, but do this on your own time and not department time".

FWIW LunaSea's response is almost identical to what I'd drafted, but then deleted.

caycep's given a much more comprehensive response around the logistics & finances, as well as why someone's recent and objectively alarming public statements can (obviously) be used to assess their credibility and impartiality.

If this is the one & only person you can cite as a follow-up of your "So I don't know who to believe?", then my doubts remain.

I would be surprised if much of that funding went to constructing those fancy buildings - donors who want their name over the door like to do that. Keeping the lights on, air heated/conditioned, stockrooms stocked, etc don't come cheap. Let's also remember that the government doesn't _just_ get all the research output from that grant money, they get a pipeline of researchers (and undergraduates) that feed industry (plus world class research facilities that can do more research, beyond what the government directly funds). And that's a large part of what has made the US so economically successful, and such a desirable place for people to learn and work.

(Also professors and post docs in many areas can make a lot more in industry, so let's not knock them too much if a university wants to look at least a little attractive to them)

I've worked in higher ed for 26 years with nearly a decade each at two large research universities (1 public, 1 private). Indirects fund administrative (compliance, legal, HR, etc) overhead, facilities (bricks, mortar, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) and all the other stuff that a research lab needs to function and comply with the terms of their grant funding.

I'm sorry but there's no luxurious facilities being funded with research grant indirects. You've been misled or are mistaken.

Yes - I mean in the private sector, hiring an employee is what, 1.4-1.6x salary cost? NIH indirects mirror that.

Fair enough. So what is the optimal percentage for indirects? Did the NIH previously have it too low, too high, or exactly right? Is there some way to quantify this?

We likely aren’t going to be able to find a local or global optimum. But whatever it is one thing is for sure; a bunch of ill informed decision makers with no experience or expertise on the matter who come in and make sweeping changes are far more likely to cause great harm than good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com