For over twenty years, I’ve worked in biomedical research policy, and there’s one topic I dread discussing: indirect costs.
Indirect costs, or facilities and administration (F&A) costs, cover expenses that are vital for research but hard to pinpoint to specific projects. These include utilities, lab buildings, and security expenses. Universities and research institutions negotiate these costs with the federal government. Without proper funding for these costs, scientific research would struggle to continue.
Recently, the Trump administration proposed a significant cut to F&A reimbursements at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Such a move could severely harm the research that is crucial for fighting diseases and promoting public health.
So why do I find discussing indirect costs so frustrating? First, the topic is complex. The way F&A reimbursement rates are set involves a maze of policies and reviews from agencies that many people have never heard of. This process is designed to ensure accountability and efficiency. After all, handling thousands of grants individually would be chaotic. However, complexity doesn’t translate to clarity, and terms like “applicable cost principles” can easily overwhelm anyone.
There’s also ongoing conflict in the research community about these costs. Some scientists argue that F&A funds could be better allocated directly to research. This view can miss the bigger picture. These costs are not just administrative fees; they’re reimbursements for actual expenses already incurred. Sudden cuts to these rates, like those proposed recently, can end up hurting researchers who rely on these funds to cover necessary expenses. Reducing F&A funding won’t create more money for direct research; it will only squeeze the resources available for critical biomedical work.
Beyond the numbers, my passion for biomedical research advocacy comes from a deeper belief in the NIH’s role in improving health outcomes. I’ve seen how research leads to breakthroughs in battling diseases. I understand the hard work and commitment behind each science project. I’ve experienced the hope that research brings to patients and families facing devastating illnesses. Speaking about funding cuts feels like a distraction from the real mission: supporting the scientific work that saves lives.
It’s essential to focus on protecting and enhancing NIH’s mission. Lawmakers across the aisle have united for decades to secure federal funding for medical research, recognizing its importance for public health.
Cutting NIH’s F&A rates could violate appropriations law, raising legal questions. However, a more pressing matter is whether Congress will respond to changes risking the integrity of our medical research system. If there’s a desire to ensure NIH is more efficient with its funding, I’m open to constructive discussions about positive changes.
But slashing F&A support will jeopardize the very core of biomedical research. It threatens not just today’s scientists but also the promise of future medical advances that could help millions.
Carrie Wolinetz is chair of the health bioscience innovations practice at Lewis-Burke Associates and was formerly chief of staff to the director of NIH.
Source link
Congress,NIH,research
