Anonymous wrote:nature article on overhead costs:

http://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costs-keeping-the-lights-on-1.16376

"The faculty doesn’t often think about all the other costs: the lights are on, the heat is on, you’re using online services the university provides.”
More bs from university administrations trying to protect its OH take.
ALL those costs are already incurred in the process of instruction covered by 9-month academic appointment,
and would not significantly drop if a faculty member did not get a grant.
The buildings still need to be heated and maintained, e-mail is still needed anywauy, and lights should be on.
OK, if the faculty or group members do research, a bit more electricity is consumed on lights in the lab and running the equipment.
That may be 1%, not 60%. A cap of 20% would already be too much if we count only the NECESSARY incremental costs to DIRECTLY support funded research.
Which is why universities accept foundation money at 10% overhead, they wouldn't otherwise.

nature article on overhead costs:

http://www.nature.com/news/indirect-costs-keeping-the-lights-on-1.16376

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate ethical oversight boards, are you nuts, PP? We need MORE oversight, not less. That doesn't have to mean expensive contractors, but there's no way in hell high-risk research needs less oversight.

The issue of indirects is a complicated one, and I agree needs reform. Universities absolutely profit off the backs of their researchers, and it's crummy. I know plenty of places in which the institution is glad to take the indirects, but won't contribute a penny towards the researcher's salary, and the lights go out if there's any lapse in funding.

There are plenty of American postdocs who would gladly take a position at the NIH--they pay better than academia and the benefits are great. The system is very broken.

But really, this budget is about posturing. It's about Trump wanting to make the poor, sick, and ignorant poorer, sicker, and more ignorant. It's about him wanting to appear strong while in reality being the weakest person ever to sit in the Oval Office.

nope. these days you need to wait 3 months for IRB approval for a questionnaire. sorry but that doesn't make any sense. any random can deliver that questionnaire on the street - and even record to make fun of people - but a researcher can't do it.

Cures Act anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How Harvard's Faust expressing outrage over NIH cuts while drawing a 1 M salary from overhead while postdocs make at best 3 K/month after tax in Boston (where basic rental is 2 K/month) is morally superior to Trump?"

this is a very good question. trump is no friend of science but i am tired of moral posturing by people who run one of the most exploitative industries in the USA. hundress of thousands of talented high achievers are languishing at 2year 50k "jobs".

Looks like that is Trump's plan: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-nih-budget-may-include-reducing-overhead-payments-universities

sounds like PP is our very own sources in the trump administration.

Anonymous wrote:How Harvard's Faust expressing outrage over NIH cuts while drawing a 1 M salary from overhead while postdocs make at best 3 K/month after tax in Boston (where basic rental is 2 K/month) is morally superior to Trump?"

this is a very good question. trump is no friend of science but i am tired of moral posturing by people who run one of the most exploitative industries in the USA. hundress of thousands of talented high achievers are languishing at 2year 50k "jobs".

Looks like that is Trump's plan: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-s-nih-budget-may-include-reducing-overhead-payments-universities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. Didn't work out too well for Dr. Mengele's victims.

Per the well-known rule, whoever brings Hitler (and his minions) in the discussion loses.
For the first 200 years of American medical science, we had no IRBs and no Mengele, but arguably faster research progress (and sure with less expense and more ROI) than today.
Apparently the basic Habeas Corpus allowing any subject to leave any study at any time (unlike with Mengele) sufficed.

exactly. in fact, if hitler's germany had IRBs those would approve mengele's experiments. the reason is that IRB is nothing but a bureaucratic version of prevailing ethical standards. these people are not expert in anything nor are they better people than scientists.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of common sense here.
As a scientist, I am sick and tired of universities that talk like communist and act as capitalist.

graduate students and postdocs come pretty close to medieval surfs.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly. Didn't work out too well for Dr. Mengele's victims.

Per the well-known rule, whoever brings Hitler (and his minions) in the discussion loses.
For the first 200 years of American medical science, we had no IRBs and no Mengele, but arguably faster research progress (and sure with less expense and more ROI) than today.
Apparently the basic Habeas Corpus allowing any subject to leave any study at any time (unlike with Mengele) sufficed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate ethical oversight boards, are you nuts, PP? We need MORE oversight, not less. That doesn't have to mean expensive contractors, but there's no way in hell high-risk research needs less oversight.

The issue of indirects is a complicated one, and I agree needs reform. Universities absolutely profit off the backs of their researchers, and it's crummy. I know plenty of places in which the institution is glad to take the indirects, but won't contribute a penny towards the researcher's salary, and the lights go out if there's any lapse in funding.

There are plenty of American postdocs who would gladly take a position at the NIH--they pay better than academia and the benefits are great. The system is very broken.

But really, this budget is about posturing. It's about Trump wanting to make the poor, sick, and ignorant poorer, sicker, and more ignorant. It's about him wanting to appear strong while in reality being the weakest person ever to sit in the Oval Office.

nope. these days you need to wait 3 months for IRB approval for a questionnaire. sorry but that doesn't make any sense. any random can deliver that questionnaire on the street - and even record to make fun of people - but a researcher can't do it.

Human subjects protections exist for a reason. If you're proposing to do away with IRBs, that will never, ever fly, nor should it. Particularly not in the current NIH climate.

Exactly. Didn't work out too well for Dr. Mengele's victims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate ethical oversight boards, are you nuts, PP? We need MORE oversight, not less. That doesn't have to mean expensive contractors, but there's no way in hell high-risk research needs less oversight.

The issue of indirects is a complicated one, and I agree needs reform. Universities absolutely profit off the backs of their researchers, and it's crummy. I know plenty of places in which the institution is glad to take the indirects, but won't contribute a penny towards the researcher's salary, and the lights go out if there's any lapse in funding.

There are plenty of American postdocs who would gladly take a position at the NIH--they pay better than academia and the benefits are great. The system is very broken.

But really, this budget is about posturing. It's about Trump wanting to make the poor, sick, and ignorant poorer, sicker, and more ignorant. It's about him wanting to appear strong while in reality being the weakest person ever to sit in the Oval Office.

nope. these days you need to wait 3 months for IRB approval for a questionnaire. sorry but that doesn't make any sense. any random can deliver that questionnaire on the street - and even record to make fun of people - but a researcher can't do it.

Human subjects protections exist for a reason. If you're proposing to do away with IRBs, that will never, ever fly, nor should it. Particularly not in the current NIH climate.

A lot of common sense here.
As a scientist, I am sick and tired of universities that talk like communist and act as capitalist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research should be in the private sector

That's certainly one perspective.

A lot of it already is.

Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.

Agree (I used to be a contractor there). And the cuts that Trump is proposing is from the discretionary spending not the actual line item funding for specific Centers. And the discretionary spending is only being cut by like 20% so there is still plenty to go around.

Anonymous wrote: All OH expenses are audited. The rates are set not by the institutions, but by the auditors. In my case, DCAA sets the OH rates.

One more thing. Auditors do not question or determine whether a particular OH expense is truly required for the performance of funded project,
only that it is legal, customary, and accords with policy. Yes, if I use OH to buy a Lambo, a yacht, or throw a party with strippers, auditors will stop that.
And if I hire my niece out of high school as VP for research, they will too.
But if the uni hires dozens of provosts, VPs, managers, associate deans, and heads of various university offices
at 150 - 400 K packages + benefits, that is perfectly fine as long as:
1. Their posted job descriptions mention advising, guiding, managing, controlling etc. research
2. Their educational qualifications (Ph. D in sociology, management, psychology, public policy, and what not) are "terminal degrees" appropriate to the job,
3. No in-your-face nepotism is involved
4. Their salaries and numbers are "customary" (meaning that other similar institutions do the same)

This is like all realtors have told you you should pay 6% commission, which is "necessary" to cover the costs (as they determine that maintaining a fancy
office with a secretary is "necessary") and "customary" (meaning that "others do the same"). Then came Redfin.

Anonymous wrote:
I do not think you understand the business models. You quote facts -- overhead does exist, but it is the cost of running the labs, etc. For example,The overhead on my projects goes to cover things like: my health insurance, retirement, vacation time (that is about 30% of the OH). It goes to cover the office expenses (rent, electricity, HVAC, computers and lab supplies), that is about 15%. It goes to cover the cost of obtaining and administering the programs -- or I am supposed to work for free when doing that? And, it goes to pay the salaries of people up the food chain. It also covers my salary when there are gaps in funding (though often, that overlaps with the cost obtaining new work). It also covers the cost of security -- everyone where I work is cleared, and that means we need spaces to do work.
I do not work for NIH, but rather DoD related. All OH expenses are audited. The rates are set not by the institutions, but by the auditors. In my case, DCAA sets the OH rates.

No, you do not quite understand the models.
First, fringe benefits (fringes) are added to an employee salary. These are the employer half of OASDI (SS and Medicare), insurances to the employee (health/life/disability), unemployment insurance contribution to the state fund,
and employer match and/or contribution to the retirement account and/or pension plan. All these together make about 30% of the salary, usually much less for graduate students who generally get only (cheap) health insurance.
I have no problems with these - those are benefits to employee, with the cost not set by the institution and funds not going to it.

THEN the total (including fringes) is subject to the overhead that I wrote about. Yes, about 15% is office expenses as you say. Most are reasonable, although can trim there too.
For one, nearly all universities are land-grant or otherwise own their buildings free and clear, hence do not pay office rent that you mention. Anyhow, I generously allowed 20%.
The security and clearances do not apply to NIH work. In most National Labs, these are vastly overdone and way out of times. Major DoE Labs do open work and have divisions
full of Chinese, Russian, Indian etc. postdocs and employees. However, all have Security and Safeguards division that process and maintain Foreign National Visitor and Assignment (FNVA)
clearance and paperwork at a large personnel cost. When DoE does work for NIH, those are loaded onto NIH overhead. For what purpose?

Most OH pays "up the food chain" as you say, and the dishes get larger the higher you go. That is what needs to be drastically cut.
Sure, it is audited. The university claims that all those presidents, executive VPs, deans, associate and assistant deans, managers, offices of diversity and inclusion, disability services, IRBs, etc. etc. etc.
are needed to guide, manage, supervise, advise, control, and police research, and the unique business and managerial qualifications of those individuals justify such pay packages.
The auditors accept that as it is the "industry standard" and comparable institutions do the same. Which is true, and exactly what needs to be broken.

And yes, abolish all IRBs. The US science has become best and most admired in the world long before anyone knew what those letters mean.