Bing Zhang
@Goodflies
Followers
2K
Following
9K
Statuses
6K
A neuroscientist, fly geneticist, & professor trying to solve the mysteries of the brain in health and disease. Cornell Alum Go BigRed Views & RT are mine.
Columbia MO
Joined December 2010
Do you have or does anyone else on X has knowledge or experience of how indirects are spent? In your restaurant analogy, what is the minimal rate can a restaurant live on? What is the most reasonable rate? I think such info will really help. Thanks
Imagine running a restaurant & suddenly only having budget for ingredients & chefs—no rent, electricity, heat, water, support staff, insurance, trash, toilet paper. This is what 'cutting indirects' did to every major biomedical center & hospital in the US.
0
0
1
Our research community would like to know 1) who made the decision on this flat rate? 2) did NIH scientific director know of this? 3) did NIH care about the consequences? 4) how will universities respond to this crisis? 5) will there be a negotiation of new rate?
So, does anyone else find this tweet suspiciously unlike anything someone who understands the NIH would actually write?
0
0
0
Totally agree with you!
@Goodflies If cutting costs is the goal, this should be undertaken through two-sided discussions and auditing of expenditures, not an across the board slash with zero notice. This is not a good-faith effort to cut costs; it's obviously an effort to cripple universities and science.
0
0
1
Josh to be clear I wanted to see more money into supporting new labs. I also disagree with how this cut is done: without any prior discussion or warning to universities. Finally, I don’t agree with the high overheads but also disagree with the arbitrary 15% flat rate.
@Goodflies Bing, I can’t believe you are justifying a massive cut to higher education. This cut was not done to fix a problem. It was done to destroy academia. If you believe these fascists are gonna use F&A savings to fund more grants you are out of your mind. Wake up!
1
0
1
I would like to see more money go to supporting new labs!
@hubermanlab @Goodflies Saving means not spending? So no money for new labs?
0
0
0
But what is groundbreaking is often difficult to spot. The best example is CRISPR. Who would think studying repeated genosequences in lowly bacteria could one day lead to the best gene editing tools?
It’s clear basic research leads to discoveries that prompt clinical trials that create novel health treatments. As @NIH restructures I hope the past culture of funding already completed projects masked as new proposals dies & more of the budget goes to labs breaking new ground.
1
0
2
RT @gunsnrosesgirl3: A 107-year-old Chinese grandmother pulls out a sweet from her pocket and gives it to her 84-year-old daughter, You’r…
0
20K
0
Jack, great hearing your voice over this. Increasing regulation seems to be one problem. Since your departure we now have many Vice this vice that and senior aid to Vice this and that. Can we fix these problems? NIH has done this poorly. Did they inform admins first?
@TheArmedLiberal @PracheeAC Problem #3. Faculty like to complain about the growth of administrations, but they also complain about having to do ANY administrative work themselves. They want it both ways, but that’s impossible. (I have been both faculty and admin.)
0
0
0
NIH overheads cut to 15% are shocking. So far, I have seen many thoughtful posts from fellow scientists. But I would like to see responses from administrators. Did NIH send a warning? Did NiH justify the cut? How will you respond? What new rate do you need? Thanks.
0
0
1
I dare to disagree. The right Qs to ask at the moment are 1) how much does a univ really need to pay electricity etc as overheads? 25%? 2) how many admins do we need? And 3) will NIH use the saved money to support more labs, especially jr faculty who are the true future?
Can I give some unsolicited advice? When communicating on this catastrophe, don’t lead with “I know the NIH is inefficient and needs serious reform, but…”. You are undercutting the entire message and buying into the frame of the arsonists. This is not a scientist audience.
2
0
20
You and I run labs and know well that NSF does not offer such high overheads. Yet, science is fine. The points most people missed over this issue are 1) can we cut bloated administration and 2) will NIH use the “saved money” to support our jr faculty?
The NIH 15% cap on indirect costs will kneecap biomedical research in the US. Without essential infrastructure, there will be: Staff cuts Lab closures Fewer research projects Less scientific progress Loss of talent The US will no longer lead scientific & medical innovation.
0
0
1
She often sells at the wrong time. She is like Kramer. When they sell, it’s a sign to buy!
Cathie Wood $ARKK sold my best friends today: - 91,785 shares of $PLTR - 250,073 shares of $HOOD
0
0
0
I wonder why it takes so long for this to happen. Would NIH give the remaining 85% overheads to support more labs, especially jr faculty?
Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.
0
0
2
Agreed totally.
@JohnStreicher1 Or…hear me out…the explosion in university administrative costs which has sicken the explosion in tuition (and student debt) gets reversed. They did pretty solid research at Berkeley when I was there in the 1970’s.
0
0
1
It’s time for universities to cut top heavy administrative costs. One person runs the USA, how many vice presidents do you need to run a university?
"Nearly every university ends large scale research." Actually, this is one of the common suggestions how to end the Academic economic bubble: that universities should primarily teach and their graduates should then go do complex research in institutes and industry, up to the number of available non-temp positions there.
0
0
0
Not do if NiH gives the 85% to support more labs.
All IDCs capped at 15% as of today. If this stands we’re done. Every research institute immediately out of business. Nearly every university ends large scale research. Back to the age of the aristocrat tinkerer.
1
0
1
Why not give the 85% to support labs? Not a massive cut but a massive boost to US science if overheads are used for research.
@florian_krammer This is, de facto , a massive cut to US science funding. Call you senators and congressmen and scream like hell if you want to preserve American dominance in biomedical science.
0
0
1
Have you noticed how many vice presidents and vice provosts your university has? Overheads went to enrich these folks. I think nih should go with 15%.
9) Lowering them drastically also reduces the access researchers have to critical infrastructure and services. One of the reasons why US biomedical research is globally leading is likely the high overhead rates that enable us to do high end research. Overhead rates e.g. in...
3
0
2
In fact, NSF grants contain overheads.
@florian_krammer Really dumb question from me: why do we even need the "overhead" at all? Why not just factor it into the base grant amount?
0
0
0
Digital twins of human body for biomedical research and treatment is next for Jensen Huang. #pmwc25
0
2
3