Yes. Most graduate and undergraduate students we train in research go to industry. This will cripple all of US science and make us less competitive. Industry can't/doesn't do this work themselves, and relies on a trained workforce from research universities.

It's been sad watching R1 universities devalue humanities, and hire fewer tenure-track faculty. The sciences have been spared largely because our grants justify our TT existence. If research now costs the university money, much less will be done. Why not just hire teaching faculty, its cheaper?

When researchers say that a low indirect rate will cripple research, this is what we mean. High costs will be placed on direct research. Other demands by the university will go up. The number of graduate students and postdocs we can train will go down. Fewer people will want to be professors.

Also, our ability to bring in grants with overhead effectively buys us out of some teaching. My teaching load is 1 course per semester. If our grants can't cover research costs, the university will raise teaching loads to pay our salaries. Much less time for research

A lot of these benefits could perhaps be rolled into direct costs. We would need to charge 4 times the rate for NMR for example to make full costs. We could charge every time the instrument tech helps. But that will inevitably kick up direct costs and cost us personnel or buying power for supplies

Welcome the UVA Chemistry Amrit! Glad to have you as a colleague.