NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Stanford used grant overhead money to buy a yacht.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Stanford used grant overhead money to buy a yacht.

35 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

They are literally professors at universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

They are literally professors at universities.

Did you actually read what they wrote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

They are literally professors at universities.

Did you actually read what they wrote?

No. They googled “inflated grant overhead” and pasted the link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

Also that random redditor is talking about an NSF grant, which does allow higher overheads than NIH. This anecdote isn't evidence that NIH grants allow the same overheads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Have you seen the rate on defense contractors? We are not even in the same ballpark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Lies. Give us some proof.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1d0edo8/university_taking_absurd_cut_from_research_funding/

Random Reddit anecdotes aren’t evidence.

They are literally professors at universities.

Did you actually read what they wrote?

Did you actually read any of the comments?

This is totally typical. Overhead at most R1 institutions is well above 50%. At the University of Maryland, where I am faculty, the overhead rate is 56%. Previously, I was at SUNY StonyBrook, and there it was ~58%. At some institutions, it's even substantially larger. This overhead is taken by the university and used for various purposes incl. but not limited to facilities (e.g. power, other utilities, maintenance, upkeep), personnel (e.g. the research administration office and grant coordinators etc.), and numerous other expenditures.

Generally, I agree, and have thought since my first grant, that these rates are kind of outrageous. Further, they are federally negotiated between the institute and funder and don't apply to all funding sources (e.g. many private funders have limitations that cap overhead at ~15% or so). Yet, I've heard many descriptions of how these funds are used and the numerous things for which they pay, so perhaps my intuition is a bit off here. Regardless of whether or not these rates are "justified", they are absolutely normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Have you seen the rate on defense contractors? We are not even in the same ballpark.

Whataboutism is a terrible argument. Because something else is worse, doesn't justify something else being bad..

Yes, we all know contractors are also part of the swamp that needs to be drained. Start your own thread on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.

Have you seen the rate on defense contractors? We are not even in the same ballpark.

Whataboutism is a terrible argument. Because something else is worse, doesn't justify something else being bad..

Yes, we all know contractors are also part of the swamp that needs to be drained. Start your own thread on that.

It really isn’t a different discussion. The federal govt has determined that there are some public goods that cannot be carried by capital markets alone. Fundamental research is one of those things. Govt could do some of it themselves (and do - see the NIH labs). But govt pay rates, bureaucracy, etc make it important for us not to rely on this as the only model. Country is opposed anyway to paying govt workers more and they also believe that innovation comes from outside govt. As such, govt looks for outside performers. These outside performers (whether it is defense contractors, other private industry providers, or academia) can charge overhead rates to recoup the cost of having to deal with all the requirements govt puts on its grants and contracts. You cannot say that the overhead rates are “high” for one sector without comparing. Universities are actually pretty cheap, all things considered, as a place to get research done and to train the next generation.

[Anonymous]

We have been notified that we can no longer purchase lab supplies. I have enough materials for the next 3 or so weeks, but then I'll have to start ramping down my lab work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have been notified that we can no longer purchase lab supplies. I have enough materials for the next 3 or so weeks, but then I'll have to start ramping down my lab work.

Even food for Clinical Center patients needs to be approved by DHHS.