Cuts are aimed at maximizing direct research costs, but critics warn of negative impacts on scientific progress.
Trump Administration Cuts Billions from Biomedical Research Funding
Trump Administration Cuts Billions from Biomedical Research Funding
Significant reduction in overhead costs for research grants raises concerns among scientists.
The Trump administration has unveiled plans to reduce overhead costs associated with biomedical research grants by billions of dollars, a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from the scientific community. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on Friday that it would implement substantial cuts to "indirect costs" linked to research projects—including expenses for facilities, utilities, and equipment.
According to the NIH, the move is intended to redirect funding towards direct research endeavors. This initiative is expected to yield savings of approximately $4 billion (£3.2 billion), as the agency plans to limit the overhead rate for research grants to 15 percent—down from the current average of 30 percent. The announcement coincides with broader cost-cutting measures led by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), championed by Elon Musk.
Musk has argued that certain universities have been exploiting the funding system, stating, "Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for 'overhead'? What a ripoff!" Despite these claims, scientists express deep concerns about the implications of the cuts on crucial medical research.
The Association of American Medical Colleges has voiced that federal support for indirect research costs is essential for the maintenance and operation of medical research activities. They warned that such funding reductions would hinder the nation's capacity for research, ultimately delaying advancements in treatments, diagnostics, and preventative care for patients nationwide.
Prominent experts in the field echo these sentiments. Anusha Kalbasi, a leading radiation oncologist at Stanford University, emphasized that the grants ensure safe environments in laboratories and maintain the necessary infrastructure for extensive data handling. "This would be a devastating hit even for institutions with large endowments," she stated.
Furthermore, the American Council on Education noted that funding for indirect costs has enabled universities to develop leading-edge laboratories and advanced research technologies essential for competing globally. Ted Mitchell, president of the Council, pointed out that some laboratories have already begun shutting down operations following the announcement, and legal action against these cuts is anticipated as early as Monday.
The recommendations to limit indirect costs stem from Project 2025, a conservative policy proposal produced by the Heritage Foundation, urging Congress to impose such caps in university research funding, aligning it with the lowest rates accepted by private organizations.
According to the NIH, the move is intended to redirect funding towards direct research endeavors. This initiative is expected to yield savings of approximately $4 billion (£3.2 billion), as the agency plans to limit the overhead rate for research grants to 15 percent—down from the current average of 30 percent. The announcement coincides with broader cost-cutting measures led by the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), championed by Elon Musk.
Musk has argued that certain universities have been exploiting the funding system, stating, "Can you believe that universities with tens of billions in endowments were siphoning off 60% of research award money for 'overhead'? What a ripoff!" Despite these claims, scientists express deep concerns about the implications of the cuts on crucial medical research.
The Association of American Medical Colleges has voiced that federal support for indirect research costs is essential for the maintenance and operation of medical research activities. They warned that such funding reductions would hinder the nation's capacity for research, ultimately delaying advancements in treatments, diagnostics, and preventative care for patients nationwide.
Prominent experts in the field echo these sentiments. Anusha Kalbasi, a leading radiation oncologist at Stanford University, emphasized that the grants ensure safe environments in laboratories and maintain the necessary infrastructure for extensive data handling. "This would be a devastating hit even for institutions with large endowments," she stated.
Furthermore, the American Council on Education noted that funding for indirect costs has enabled universities to develop leading-edge laboratories and advanced research technologies essential for competing globally. Ted Mitchell, president of the Council, pointed out that some laboratories have already begun shutting down operations following the announcement, and legal action against these cuts is anticipated as early as Monday.
The recommendations to limit indirect costs stem from Project 2025, a conservative policy proposal produced by the Heritage Foundation, urging Congress to impose such caps in university research funding, aligning it with the lowest rates accepted by private organizations.
