Correction: "The National Institutes of Health is cutting 15% of its indirect cost rates" is not what they announced - they said that they were cutting indirect cost rates TO 15%. This would be huge - the typical amount of costs (like IT) that can't be assigned to direct costs (like researcher salaries) is 50-70% referenced to the direct costs, which is how it's calculated. Requiring such a limitation could effectively end research at universities and other research institutions. And while some administrative costs are probably worthy of review, this approach uses a machete rather than a scalpel. Like a lot of actions the new Fed administration is attempting to implement.
In the case of other Federal organizations funding research, like NSF, so far I've only seen general statements of cutting the funding, not this specific approach. But for some perspective: when I was on NSF review panels, we typically would have ~30 proposals to review and we could only fund 3. Often we'd think that 10 were worthy of support, so we had to hunt for any weakness at all to cut it down to 3. Cuts in funding would mean we couldn't even fund the 3. Why do we want to retreat from being the preeminent country for research advances?
{shrug} Too many leftist causes are being promoted? I have no idea what these horses asses are thinking. I think they are simply hell-bent on destroying the government infrastructure so that it can't be rebuilt. No thought is going into "fraud" or "waste" - simply destruction of the government.
I don’t know if a 15% limit in administrative/overhead charges is the appropriate level - however, private grants (foundations and individuals) universally limit overhead/administrative charges to percentages well under the 50% to 60% levels reported in connection with NIH grants (and donors are advised to avoid grant-seeking enterprises that spend more than 20% to 25% of their grants on admin/overhead). Informed critics also have stated that NIH grants have not resulted in benefits proportionate to the aggregate grant amounts - and recommend specific process changes. https://open.substack.com/pub/vinayprasadmdmph/p/the-nih-must-make-these-8-reforms?r=1pv2jp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
It's true that private grants often/typically limit overhead rates to a low level. But for a small institute like the one I led, we couldn't accept much of that because it wouldn't cover institutional costs that we had to pay. Larger institutions have more flexibility, but even there if there are NO sponsors willing to pay for rent, finance and compliance admin, IT, utilities, etc., no institution can survive. Also: keep in mind that the overhead rate is different from "the % of the grant spent on overhead" - for instance, a 50% overhead would mean the overhead was 1/3 of the grant (50/(100+50), and considerably less than that if non-overhead-bearing direct costs (like capital equipment and typically, tuition) are there.
Insisting on such a low overhead rate for Federal grants is like taking a machete to research budgets, rather than the scalpel that is sometimes appropriate.
I don't think it's accurate to claim that SB1070 is unenforced, considering its prohibition of sanctuary cities and the legislature's authority to file 1487 complaints against non-compliant cities has eliminated sanctuary cities from Arizona. I know a few municipalities that are itching to be sanctuary cities. (A 1487 complaint alleges that a county or municipality is breaking state law and can lead to the suspension of state-shared revenue.) — Sen. John Kavanagh
Sen.Kavanaugh, what happened to the Republican belief in local control? Cities should be able to be sanctuary cities where law biding immigrants can feel safe until they get through the process to become citizens. Glad you read this. Way to go. Points for you.
Gov. Hobbs will take on anybody in arm wrestling. Gonna get a lot of exercize in her writing hand just drawing a line through anything authored by Kavanaugh, Keshel, or Wendy Rogers. This is wasting time, people. Midterms will be here before you know it and we get another chance to elect rational representatives. If you are looking for something to do...contact your local Democratic office.
Correction: "The National Institutes of Health is cutting 15% of its indirect cost rates" is not what they announced - they said that they were cutting indirect cost rates TO 15%. This would be huge - the typical amount of costs (like IT) that can't be assigned to direct costs (like researcher salaries) is 50-70% referenced to the direct costs, which is how it's calculated. Requiring such a limitation could effectively end research at universities and other research institutions. And while some administrative costs are probably worthy of review, this approach uses a machete rather than a scalpel. Like a lot of actions the new Fed administration is attempting to implement.
In the case of other Federal organizations funding research, like NSF, so far I've only seen general statements of cutting the funding, not this specific approach. But for some perspective: when I was on NSF review panels, we typically would have ~30 proposals to review and we could only fund 3. Often we'd think that 10 were worthy of support, so we had to hunt for any weakness at all to cut it down to 3. Cuts in funding would mean we couldn't even fund the 3. Why do we want to retreat from being the preeminent country for research advances?
{shrug} Too many leftist causes are being promoted? I have no idea what these horses asses are thinking. I think they are simply hell-bent on destroying the government infrastructure so that it can't be rebuilt. No thought is going into "fraud" or "waste" - simply destruction of the government.
I don’t know if a 15% limit in administrative/overhead charges is the appropriate level - however, private grants (foundations and individuals) universally limit overhead/administrative charges to percentages well under the 50% to 60% levels reported in connection with NIH grants (and donors are advised to avoid grant-seeking enterprises that spend more than 20% to 25% of their grants on admin/overhead). Informed critics also have stated that NIH grants have not resulted in benefits proportionate to the aggregate grant amounts - and recommend specific process changes. https://open.substack.com/pub/vinayprasadmdmph/p/the-nih-must-make-these-8-reforms?r=1pv2jp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
It's true that private grants often/typically limit overhead rates to a low level. But for a small institute like the one I led, we couldn't accept much of that because it wouldn't cover institutional costs that we had to pay. Larger institutions have more flexibility, but even there if there are NO sponsors willing to pay for rent, finance and compliance admin, IT, utilities, etc., no institution can survive. Also: keep in mind that the overhead rate is different from "the % of the grant spent on overhead" - for instance, a 50% overhead would mean the overhead was 1/3 of the grant (50/(100+50), and considerably less than that if non-overhead-bearing direct costs (like capital equipment and typically, tuition) are there.
Insisting on such a low overhead rate for Federal grants is like taking a machete to research budgets, rather than the scalpel that is sometimes appropriate.
I don't think it's accurate to claim that SB1070 is unenforced, considering its prohibition of sanctuary cities and the legislature's authority to file 1487 complaints against non-compliant cities has eliminated sanctuary cities from Arizona. I know a few municipalities that are itching to be sanctuary cities. (A 1487 complaint alleges that a county or municipality is breaking state law and can lead to the suspension of state-shared revenue.) — Sen. John Kavanagh
Sen.Kavanaugh, what happened to the Republican belief in local control? Cities should be able to be sanctuary cities where law biding immigrants can feel safe until they get through the process to become citizens. Glad you read this. Way to go. Points for you.
SB1031 is not a feel-good bill. It is a look-good bill.
Ha ha! Good one.
May I ask, what do you have against trans people? Are you a doctor? A geneticists? There are so few. Less than 1 million out of 330 million in US.
The last time I looked, which was admittedly over 50 years ago, the Arizona constitution had an explicit right to privacy. Of course I could be wrong.
Gov. Hobbs will take on anybody in arm wrestling. Gonna get a lot of exercize in her writing hand just drawing a line through anything authored by Kavanaugh, Keshel, or Wendy Rogers. This is wasting time, people. Midterms will be here before you know it and we get another chance to elect rational representatives. If you are looking for something to do...contact your local Democratic office.