Researchers decry 鈥榙isastrously bad idea鈥� as NIH slashes payments for research infrastructure
'For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds,' one professor explained
'For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds,' one professor explained
'For a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds,' one professor explained
The U.S. National Institutes of Health is lowering the maximum 鈥渋ndirect cost rate鈥� that research institutions can charge the government, the agency late Friday 鈥� a move that scientists said could be devastating for the nation鈥檚 position as a research leader.
Related video above: White House rescinds federal grant freeze amid legal challenges (1/29/25)
The average NIH grant to an institution has typically had about 30% earmarked for infrastructure costs such as facilities, maintenance and security; some institutions charged up to 60% or more. The new NIH policy will cap that indirect cost rate at 15%, effective immediately.
鈥淣IH spent more than $35 Billion in Fiscal Year 2023 on almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions,鈥� the agency said in its announcement. 鈥淥f this funding, approximately $26 billion went to direct costs for research, while $9 billion was allocated to overhead through NIH鈥檚 indirect cost rate.鈥�
The agency said the move would more closely align government-funded indirect costs with the rates paid by private foundations. The Gates Foundation, for example, pays a 10% rate for indirect costs, while the Carnegie Corporation and John Templeton Foundation each pay 15% of indirect costs for research.
However, researchers said the new policy would kneecap the nation鈥檚 status as a global leader.
鈥淩esearch is not just about having the scientists and lab equipment. It鈥檚 about ensuring that the institution has a support system in place,鈥� Dr. Harlan Krumholz, the Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine at the Yale School of Medicine, said in on the Inside Medicine newsletter. 鈥淲ithout these overhead expenses being covered, research institutions will struggle to maintain the very research infrastructure that enables groundbreaking medical advances.鈥�
Institutions will have to absorb these costs themselves, Krumholz said, or cut back on their work. 鈥淭here鈥檚 certainly opportunities to streamline operations, reduce unnecessary overhead, make research funding more transparent and effective, but cutting the indirect rate so abruptly, so drastically, without sufficient safeguards, will threaten the foundational infrastructure that supports our research capacity.鈥�
Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a biologist at the University of Washington, noted on social media that the new policy 鈥渕eans cutting one of the most important sources of university funding nationwide by 75% or more.鈥�
鈥淔or a large university, this creates a sudden and catastrophic shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars against already budgeted funds,鈥� he said in on Bluesky.
Dr. Theodore Iwashyna, a professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine and of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University, said the move was 鈥渁 disastrously bad idea.鈥�
鈥淭his would be devastating for research,鈥� he wrote in an email to CNN. 鈥淚t would mean the direct costs we get will not go nearly as far. It means the private foundations that currently give money for research (often only possible because the NIH is paying for the infrastructure) won鈥檛 want to give, because their money won鈥檛 go as far.
鈥淎nd frankly, this means that the lives of my children and grandchildren 鈥� and maybe yours 鈥� will be shorter and sicker, because discoveries will not be made. It means the NIH research that has been the backbone of the high-tech health economy will be gutted, reducing their economic opportunities.鈥�
Dr. Ned Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute from 2017 to 2022, predicted that universities across the country will move swiftly to challenge the new policy but said he agreed with the NIH that a re-evaluation of indirect costs is needed.
鈥淚 think a discussion of what is the right balance of indirect costs for American research is a good discussion to be having,鈥� he told CNN. 鈥淭he impact of this across institutions would not be uniform. The places that are most dependent on indirects tend to be private research institutions with high facilities costs, and these places will really struggle with such a policy.鈥�
Senator Patty Murray, D-Washington, said the abruptly lowered indirect cost rate is illegal under the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill.
鈥淭his funding helps produce breakthroughs that change patients鈥� lives, prepare us for pandemics and other global health threats, and ensure the U.S. continues to be the global leader in biomedical research,鈥� she said in . 鈥淎fter a global pandemic that brought the world economy to a grinding halt and cost more than one million American lives, it鈥檚 unthinkable that [President Donald] Trump and [Elon] Musk want to pull funding that will force public and private labs across America to shutter.鈥�
Trump proposed capping indirect costs in his previous administration, but the effort was unsuccessful. More recently, indirect cost reform was one of the proposals in , a sweeping plan to overhaul the government that Trump disavowed during his campaign.
CNN鈥檚 Meg Tirrell and Jacqueline Howard contributed to this report.
