jbarr.bsky.social
jbarr.bsky.social
@jbarr.bsky.social
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
8. It is difficult to overstate what a catastrophe this will be for the US research and education systems, particular in biomedical fields.

It is deliberate and wanton devastation entirely out of scale with any concern about DEI activities on campuses.

The goal is destroy US universities.
February 8, 2025 at 12:46 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
7. This order did not come out of nowhere. It was a core component of Lindsey Burke's Dept. of Education chapter in the Project 2025 report.

(Private foundations typically pay 10-15% overhead rates, and the logic of this comparison is made explicit in today's Supplemental Guidance from NIH.)
February 8, 2025 at 12:41 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
6. The policy does not just affect funding going forward. All existing NIH grants will have their indirect rates cut to 15% as of today, the date of issuance.

For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds.
February 8, 2025 at 12:33 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
5. Other schools may have even higher overhead rates. Harvard's is around 69%.

This new order slashes that percentage to a maximum of 15%. This means cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.

Universities cannot function with this scale of cut.
February 8, 2025 at 12:28 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
4. These F&A costs, colloquially known as "overhead", are typically north of 50%. At the UW, for example, the overhead rate is 55%. That means that if I get federal grant for $1,000,000 of direct research funding, the university receives an additional $550,000 to cover operating expenses and such.
February 8, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
3. To this end, they support the institutions where grantees work by paying facilities and administration (F&A) costs to research institutions such as universities. These costs above and beyond the direct amount of the grant are essential to fund university infrastructure and personnel.
February 8, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
2. While NSF and NIH indeed have a mission to fund specific research innovations via grantmaking, they do a lot more than that.

Their principal role is support a scientific ecosystem in the United States, that includes everything from education and training to infrastructure and communication.
February 8, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
Goodman, the witness from White Coat Waste project says NIH wastes $20 billion a year. In actuality, each dollar of NIH funding generates ~$2.50 of economic activity www.nih.gov/about-nih/wh...
Direct Economic Contributions
NIH directly supports the economy through investments in research institutions and job formation.
www.nih.gov
February 6, 2025 at 7:21 PM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
Sounds like you've been reading Nathan Tankus...? He points out that the constitution and Court injunctions are not self-enforcing. In simple terms, it comes down to who controls the purse.
February 8, 2025 at 4:34 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
This is why they broke the treasury first. Because if they can pause payments according to these “orders” then the regulations don’t matter.
February 8, 2025 at 1:56 AM
Reposted by jbarr.bsky.social
On changes to #NIH indirect rates, there is a law in place that prohibits NIH from making such changes without the approval of Congress. See Division D, Title II Section 224 of The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law No: 118-47) grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
NOT-OD-24-110: Notice of Legislative Mandates in Effect for FY 2024
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Notice of Legislative Mandates in Effect for FY 2024 NOT-OD-24-110. NIH
grants.nih.gov
February 8, 2025 at 2:48 AM