ferCALgm2 said:
Woke? What the heck does biomedical research have to do with "woke"? This looks like it will have a huge blow to scientific research at all/most universities.
This green haired UC Berkeley researcher studying "environmental surveillances of parasites in India" is panicking over her government DEI grant being reviewed pic.twitter.com/dgSJQYF2Kd
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 9, 2025
BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
There are merits to a debate. If you think the NIH deserves to remain unchanged, you need to justify it on the merits irrespective of what the cost savings might be used for.socaltownie said:
There are no merits to it. They are not planning on keeping nih whole. The money saved will be used as an offset to lower taxes at a time when inflation is high. I hate the gop
calpoly said:I would be surprised if this can be applied to existing contracts.socaltownie said:
The cut in nih indirect overhead (get ready for the same in nsf) if it stands will create a an 8 or even 9 figure hole in uc's budget. I can not over emphasis the risk to research universities if this moves forward.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/08/trump-nih-university-funding-014838
I was Principal Investigator for a major US govt. grant program for several years. Among other things, I was responsible for calculating the actual indirect costs which we used in the course of our operations. Here are a few things that should be kept in mind.MinotStateBeav said:
Sounds like the University system needs to do a rework on spending, crying on a forum is more entertaining though.
Thank you for sharing actual knowledge on this topic. Based on this, looks like the recent NIH decision makes sense.Rushinbear said:I was Principal Investigator for a major US govt. grant program for several years. Among other things, I was responsible for calculating the actual indirect costs which we used in the course of our operations. Here are a few things that should be kept in mind.MinotStateBeav said:
Sounds like the University system needs to do a rework on spending, crying on a forum is more entertaining though.
1. The Indirect Cost for any one grant program is only those costs which are actually incurred by that program. They do not include any costs that the university, in its central mission, incurs. ALL Indirect, the total of all grant programs the university operates, should not equal the total costs that the university incurs. The university, in pursuit of its core mission(s) should pay its share of total Indirect. More often, total indirect from all grants EXCEEDS the university's actual Indirect.
2. As a university's admin costs rise, due to bloat and inefficiency, its admin costs eligible for Indirect calculation go up. Granted (no pun intended), some of this bloat is imposed by the US government in the form of regulations, some of which are make work for US government agencies. But, some admin costs are caused by the university and its state government.
3. Universities do not operate support services that are solely the servants of grant programs. If they did, those would be Direct costs of the program. Such services also have the responsibility to service non-grant operations of the university. They may support more than one grant program, but not grants entirely. Also, central admin operations are paid for many times over as they charge allowable %'s on each grant application.
4. INDIRECT IS A PROFIT CENTER FOR THE UNIVERSITY. The first year of my program, our Indirect was 8% and that's what we entered in the budget. The next year, it was 8% again, then 10%. I said, OK, we can live with that. The next year, the Univ raised it to 12% and the grantor (US govt) went along with that. So did we. The next year, the Univ came to me and said, you know we can support the Univ if we increase Indirect to 26%. The next day, I started to plan an exit strategy - the handwriting was on the wall. The next year, they raised it to 52% and I closed up shop. We (4 other faculty + staff) walked away and went private.
Indirect has been made just another way to game the system. The original idea was that faculty would be doing their research as part of the univ mission. It was observed that such research might be in the interest of the fed govt too, and they asked if they could piggy-back by offering grants. Then, as grants proliferated, the faculty and univ and the fed agencies got in bed together and got married. The purpose of that marriage got perverted to self-service, as both parties saw ways to aggrandize themselves, jointly. Call it what you will.
"To them written contracts are just "guidelines and suggestions" not binding agreements." Interesting. I had the same take on the Biden administration's focus on student loans. Seems they too viewed binding agreements as just guidelines and suggestions.GivemTheAxe said:calpoly said:I would be surprised if this can be applied to existing contracts.socaltownie said:
The cut in nih indirect overhead (get ready for the same in nsf) if it stands will create a an 8 or even 9 figure hole in uc's budget. I can not over emphasis the risk to research universities if this moves forward.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/08/trump-nih-university-funding-014838
Think again.
Trump has blown through contracts entered into by many governmental agencies Not just USAID but contracts with employees and other entities. To them written contracts are just "guidelines and suggestions" not binding agreements.
This is very bad for US population especially MEN.
Prostate Cancer is the second greatest killer of males in the US since MOST men will eventually become subject to prostate cancer as they grow older. And there are no obvious symptoms of prostate cancer until it reaches Stage Four and becomes incurable
Medical research to fight prostate cancer has received great attention (and the money necessary for such research) at most major research institutions.
Major discoveries at many universities (including Cal and UCSF) have improved the ability to cure Prostate Cancer if detected early. And very recent discoveries (within the last 5-8 years) have added up to four years of life for cancer victims who have Stage Four (non-curable) prostate cancer. And further advancements are on going (as long as the medical research continues).
Males who think that Trump's actions in cutting medical research will not affect them. Should think again. Prostate Cancer is coming for most of you.
Gutting cancer research is taking away protections that you might otherwise have access to in order to cure prostate cancer or further delay its fatal effect.
So we men have a choice. Fight Trump's cuts to medical research. Or use your tax savings to pay for your funerals and grave sites
It's your choice
The problem is when you go this direction is that you lose all credibility. There was an election over all this and your views lost, and the problem is that you are unwilling to accept the consequences of that election. You start with name calling and labeling people, especially guys like AunBurn. A tactic where someone attacks another person's character or identity with insults and derogatory labels instead of addressing the substance of their argument impedes any discussion of what actually is at stake.socaltownie said:
There are no merits to it. They are not planning on keeping nih whole. The money saved will be used as an offset to lower taxes at a time when inflation is high. I hate the gop
There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
sycasey said:If you want this full-blast in your face every day, head on over to Off-Topic.CNHTH said:chazzed said:
Politico is not funded by USAID. That's just propaganda brought to you by Elmo's far right.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/fact-check-did-white-house-pay-politico/amp/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/news-outlet-politico-got-dragged-120700040.html
Seriously *** is he talking about?
Mods…come on now!
I've had far less political threads removed and even then the guy claiming "politico is funded by USAID" is parroting a proven lie propagated by a right wing extremist.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5130996-politico-government-subscription-usaid-musk-trump/amp/
Women are less affected by prostrate cancer. You can use your tax savings to transition.GivemTheAxe said:
So we men have a choice. Fight Trump's cuts to medical research. Or use your tax savings to pay for your funerals and grave sites
It's your choice
Pittstop said:ferCALgm2 said:
Goodness, why are you all arguing about Politico. Look it up any news source and the fact is real. Here is NPR:
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/08/g-s1-47383/nih-announces-new-funding-policy-that-rattles-medical-researchers
Woke? What the heck does biomedical research have to do with "woke"? This looks like it will have a huge blow to scientific research at all/most universities
Courtesy of the anti-science, Jewish space lasers-mongering, tin-foil-hat-wearing far right.
Joihnson Flat out said he plans on scoring the ID savings as an offset for the tax cut so it will be 4+ billion LESS for unviersities like UC. Currently UC gets nearly 1 billion (with a B) in NIH funding. So assume we go from 50 to 15. That is 350 MILLION in cost savings.wifeisafurd said:The problem is when you go this direction is that you lose all credibility. There was an election over all this and your views lost, and the problem is that you are unwilling to accept the consequences of that election. You start with name calling and labeling people, especially guys like AunBurn. A tactic where someone attacks another person's character or identity with insults and derogatory labels instead of addressing the substance of their argument impedes any discussion of what actually is at stake.socaltownie said:
There are no merits to it. They are not planning on keeping nih whole. The money saved will be used as an offset to lower taxes at a time when inflation is high. I hate the gop
As I think you are aware, I sit on a board of large University science research entity that is fortunate to have the backing of several billionaires, but also is deeply engaged in federal research programs. (Just so everyone knows my biases). Federal funded research is not perfect . There is limited funding available, researchers often face fierce competition for grants, leading to the possibility of engaging in trendy or politically motivated research areas, potentially neglecting important but less fashionable research questions. And a lot of this research deservedly receives criticism, which is why most universities actually have people providing oversight. But yes, there are some really shaky projects, some which will be mentioned on this thread and in the public discussion, but they are a very small portion of the projects funded.
Federal funding also in not perfect. Governments Should Not Fund ResearchCato Institutehttps://www.cato.org blog governments-should-not-f...Moving to the more practical, there is a need to demonstrate tangible results within a short Federal grant cycle can result in prioritizing projects with quicker outcomes over long-term, high-impact research. For example, without long term defense department funding, there probably would not be an internet today. IMO, there is an old boys network to Federal funding causing unequal access to funding, a bias against younger or less prominent researchers, as opposed to picking projects on merits. Federal funding has the disadvantage of a massive amount of red tape slowing progress and having people who may not be the most qualified making decisions.
But what has not been discussed is the negatives with the alternatives. When research is funded by Billionaires, private companies or industries with vested interests, there can be pressure to produce results that favor the funder's agenda, potentially compromising research integrity. This pressure to secure funding can sometimes lead to unethical practices such as data manipulation or fabrication. And I don't mean to denigrate the objectives of funders. They often have the most highly pubic benefitting motivations. Then again, Federal funding has the advantage of being able to provide funds where the profit motive is not sufficient. Private funding has the disadvantage of not deep enough pockets - there just are many worth while projects that won't be funded by private sources. And I might add, Federal projects that have been quite beneficial to the Federal government.
The bottom line is that federal funding of research has improved public health, stimulated economic growth, provided for a stronger national defense, and provided a whole lot of other public good. Rather than end federal research grants and payment of indirect costs, a better approach is to improve the grant process and oversight so less merited, politically biased, or bad research is not funded, and only truly relevant costs, such as making sure the lights are on at laboratories are funded.
I think with such an approach, a reasonable result can occur. But in the present environment, with the shrill and "ad hominem" attacks, no one is going to listen. Clearly, very few people listen to what Politico has to say, just as an article from Fox News isn't going to hold much creditability for you. We need to move on and instead address a funding process that improves the benefit and efficiency of Federal research.
I also think this thread, while sometimes interesting, belongs in OT.
Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
Congratulations on once again adding nothing of value to a discussion. it is pathetic but I will give you credit for being consistent.DiabloWags said:
Yup.
Your boy Trump just cut NIH funding.
Guess he doesnt care about crippling our medical research and innovation capability.
How does this make America great again?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/08/trump-administration-medical-research-funding-cuts
The one thing I would admit is that there is a lack of transparency within universities around this issue and maybe one good thing to come from this current mess is more openness. Many researchers on campus wonder where their indirect costs (IDC) go. This comes up in the context of researchers saying in frustration, "why should I have to pay for X from my direct costs when I bring in $500,000 a year to campus in IDC?" The senior administrators assert that indirect costs do not cover the full F and A costs for research. In their defense, the whole research enterprise is extraordinarily complex, which I guess would make it hard to distill into one table or spreadsheet.BearGoggles said:
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
I didn't answer your question because I'm still trying to obtain the necessary information to formulate a position on a topic I don't know anything about (NIH/research funding). That is called an open mind with good faith inquiry.DiabloWags said:
I asked you a question.
And once again, you do nothing more than DEFLECT.
Ah, then he knows.bear2034 said:sycasey said:If you want this full-blast in your face every day, head on over to Off-Topic.CNHTH said:chazzed said:
Politico is not funded by USAID. That's just propaganda brought to you by Elmo's far right.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/fact-check-did-white-house-pay-politico/amp/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/news-outlet-politico-got-dragged-120700040.html
Seriously *** is he talking about?
Mods…come on now!
I've had far less political threads removed and even then the guy claiming "politico is funded by USAID" is parroting a proven lie propagated by a right wing extremist.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5130996-politico-government-subscription-usaid-musk-trump/amp/
To be fair to CNHTH, he was over in OT the other day and told everyone who supported cuts to USAID to make love to themselves in no uncertain terms.
Return of the King said:Since chazzed is one of our dumbest most easily propagandized liberals in OT, we'll start his education here about what a scam Politico is.chazzed said:
Politico is not funded by USAID. That's just propaganda brought to you by Elmo's far right.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/fact-check-did-white-house-pay-politico/amp/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/news-outlet-politico-got-dragged-120700040.htmlPolitico does receive federal tax dollars, just not for what you might thinkhttps://t.co/dcRa0Kr9Gk
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) February 8, 2025Quote:
Trump's spiteful attack on federal payments to what he considers the "fake news" media, whatever his motives, is a good thing. Politico is a billion dollar private company that, apart from its publicly available reporting, sells the U.S. government's own data back to it in the form of glossy insider products. That is hardly some kind of public interest journalistic endeavor. So why should ordinary people's taxes pay for it?
The major media refuses to answer this question and instead has gone to bat for Politico with misleading "fact checks" and compulsive repetitions of the phrase "conspiracy theory."Quote:
According to these same data, the federal government has been spending between $6-8 million a year over the past three years for Politico services. Politico Pro, the company says, offers "tools and intelligence to influence government priorities" with slick, user-friendly features like legislation trackers, bill summaries and policymaker directories. In other words, the federal government shells out millions to learn about its own goings-on from reports based on the government's own data. Taxes pay for government to produce the data and for Politico to process the data into proprietary formats the public never gets to access.
There are many ways to define profit in this case. By profit, I meant an amount above expense. When you hack up the univ pres and office costs and collect more than that in indirect on all grants, you've got a piece of profit. Figure that for every conceivable cost center in the univ that might have the remotest connection to the grant subject and you've got profit. Univ grant admins argue very hard to include everything they can think of and the grantor admins are easily persuaded.BearGoggles said:I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
My only additional comment is that there has been tremendous administrative bloat at UC (and other universities) and I can't help but wonder to what extent (if any) that is being passed along as an indirect research expense. Again - I don't know but I do wonder.
It is easy to game a system when the operator of the system (the gov) is happy to be gamed. It certainly is remarkable how vociferously certain members of the beltway blob (from both parties) are opposing any attempt to audit expenses.Rushinbear said:There are many ways to define profit in this case. By profit, I meant an amount above expense. When you hack up the univ pres and office costs and collect more than that in indirect on all grants, you've got a piece of profit. Figure that for every conceivable cost center in the univ that might have the remotest connection to the grant subject and you've got profit. Univ grant admins argue very hard to include everything they can think of and the grantor admins are easily persuaded.BearGoggles said:I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
My only additional comment is that there has been tremendous administrative bloat at UC (and other universities) and I can't help but wonder to what extent (if any) that is being passed along as an indirect research expense. Again - I don't know but I do wonder.
In my case, my indirect went from 12% to 52% in two years. Our guys would not have been so bold as to ask for that big an increase. Instead, the grantor let them know that they had acceded to those levels for others, so why shouldn't our univ. So,... In other management fields, this is called whipsawing.
the irony is that the researchers complain that they will lose grant money is changes are made, when reductions in indirect could mean MORE for them. Let's put the savings into DIRECT.BearGoggles said:It is easy to game a system when the operator of the system (the gov) is happy to be gamed. It certainly is remarkable how vociferously certain members of the beltway blob (from both parties) are opposing any attempt to audit expenses.Rushinbear said:There are many ways to define profit in this case. By profit, I meant an amount above expense. When you hack up the univ pres and office costs and collect more than that in indirect on all grants, you've got a piece of profit. Figure that for every conceivable cost center in the univ that might have the remotest connection to the grant subject and you've got profit. Univ grant admins argue very hard to include everything they can think of and the grantor admins are easily persuaded.BearGoggles said:I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
My only additional comment is that there has been tremendous administrative bloat at UC (and other universities) and I can't help but wonder to what extent (if any) that is being passed along as an indirect research expense. Again - I don't know but I do wonder.
In my case, my indirect went from 12% to 52% in two years. Our guys would not have been so bold as to ask for that big an increase. Instead, the grantor let them know that they had acceded to those levels for others, so why shouldn't our univ. So,... In other management fields, this is called whipsawing.
LOL. But that isn't the plan. This is all about "Savings" so the tax extension scores better,. Not acknowledging that is pollyannish.Rushinbear said:the irony is that the researchers complain that they will lose grant money is changes are made, when reductions in indirect could mean MORE for them. Let's put the savings into DIRECT.BearGoggles said:It is easy to game a system when the operator of the system (the gov) is happy to be gamed. It certainly is remarkable how vociferously certain members of the beltway blob (from both parties) are opposing any attempt to audit expenses.Rushinbear said:There are many ways to define profit in this case. By profit, I meant an amount above expense. When you hack up the univ pres and office costs and collect more than that in indirect on all grants, you've got a piece of profit. Figure that for every conceivable cost center in the univ that might have the remotest connection to the grant subject and you've got profit. Univ grant admins argue very hard to include everything they can think of and the grantor admins are easily persuaded.BearGoggles said:I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
My only additional comment is that there has been tremendous administrative bloat at UC (and other universities) and I can't help but wonder to what extent (if any) that is being passed along as an indirect research expense. Again - I don't know but I do wonder.
In my case, my indirect went from 12% to 52% in two years. Our guys would not have been so bold as to ask for that big an increase. Instead, the grantor let them know that they had acceded to those levels for others, so why shouldn't our univ. So,... In other management fields, this is called whipsawing.
Again - I could care less about the blob or no blob. None of you MAGAs are answering the question of where UC finds 350 MILLION in ONE YEAR in savings.....BearGoggles said:It is easy to game a system when the operator of the system (the gov) is happy to be gamed. It certainly is remarkable how vociferously certain members of the beltway blob (from both parties) are opposing any attempt to audit expenses.Rushinbear said:There are many ways to define profit in this case. By profit, I meant an amount above expense. When you hack up the univ pres and office costs and collect more than that in indirect on all grants, you've got a piece of profit. Figure that for every conceivable cost center in the univ that might have the remotest connection to the grant subject and you've got profit. Univ grant admins argue very hard to include everything they can think of and the grantor admins are easily persuaded.BearGoggles said:I would define profit center as recovery of amounts in excess of the actual legitimately allocated costs. Rushinbear's post seems to lay all this out. Maybe address his points?socaltownie said:Define profit center in the context of a R1 university? The indirect costs (say a portion of the facility cost of the Nat. Science building) is definitely flowing to the top line unrestricted. But that just means that tuition, state support, etc. can be that much less. It isn't like it is being distributed to shareholders.BearGoggles said:Thank you once again for a very detailed and informative explanation. And just to be clear, I do think university research is of critical value to our country.GoCal80 said:There is complexity in that even within one disciplinary area, there are many types of research, and a campus has research in many disciplines (in the sciences: biomedical, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc.). Also, there are many federal funders, which include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, etc.BearGoggles said:Thank you for answering the question (in part). Can you share what does fall in the overhead calculation which you say doesn't cover the full cost? For example, at Cal, does that include the cost of the lab only, or costs associated with running the campus as a whole (including admin unrelated to the lab)?GoCal80 said:BearGoggles said:
Amazing to me that literally no one has asked or discussed the two question that matter most.
Why are universities including a 30-69% overhead and admin charge on grant applications? And what does Cal charge?
It seems like a really high percentage to me, but I fully admit I have no idea how the grant applications are structured.
Instead of dealing with the merits, we have the usual crowd having a negative reaction without any discussion of the merits of the change.
Cal's overhead is 62% set by the Office of Naval Research, which visits campuses, does a thorough analysis of the administration and physical plant, and sets the overhead. The overhead actually does not even cover the full research costs. If this change stands American research falls way behind China and some European countries, as do all the economic, health and national security benefits. Civilized societies invest in their future and well being rather than finding ways to finance tax breaks for billionaires.
And what costs are included in the "not overhead" categories?
The University with the Office of Navel Research sets an indirect cost rate through a site visit/negotiation process that is very detailed and involved. Labor costs in the bay area are very high. Grants generally do not keep up with inflation. There is, no doubt, opportunity to make things more efficient, but what was done will destroy research and future generations of research talent who will opt to take their talents elsewhere.
Federal grants to the university are structured so that individual investigators (faculty at Cal) write to an agency for a grant. If you get an award for $1 million/year, that is to cover the expenses directly related to your research, including the personnel working on the project directly, equipment, chemicals, repairs to equipment, publication fees (journals charge you to publish), service contracts on equipment, which can be very high, disposable items specific to your research area like plastic petri dishes in life sciences, and animals if you do research on mice, etc.
Indirect costs cover the F&A, which stands for Facilities and Administration. Facilities includes things like computing (super computers, high speed internet), water filtration systems, fume hoods, temparature-controlled rooms, clean rooms, all things that serve many research labs. Administration includes things like staff to administer your grant(s), purchasing staff to handle ordering, staff to remove hazardous waste, animal care staff to maintain animals and animal facilities, IT staff, compliance staff for anything that is potentially hazardous and to insure that grant funds are spent only on approved items.
University research is done at a fraction of the costs in industry in large part because much of the labor force is trainees (graduate students and postdoctoral research fellows). Importantly, University research produces two things of great value to society: (1) New knowledge, (2) A highly trained workforce. Those two things, produced at bargain rates, explain why there are ~400 biotech companies in the Bay Area (thanks to Cal, Stanford and UCSF) and a booming tech industry. The investment in university research produces enormous economic benefits, yet it now is all at risk because we have tech bros with the "move fast and brake things" ethos damaging our country's precious infrastructure. It will be very hard to recover from all the damage being done.
I would be very interested to read your response to Rushinbear's post above, particularly his view that the indirect charges are a profit center to the university? That seems to be the potential political issue/concern.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/125945/replies/2465677
Now, I know the criticism on the right - all that Woke and DEI stuff. But that is minimal. Again, indirect to UC would decrease (if we go from 50% to 15%) a minimum of $350 MILLION. That is like closing Merced. And just enabling MORE research doesn't really work because the post-docs and faculty stil lneed lab space, HR functions, administrative support, etc. etc. etc.
It is important to note that private foundations "get away" with less indirect because it is "blended" with the federal support (aka the feds are cross subsidizing) as well as the belief that higher than 10% indirect to gates would mean he would simply not fund the stuff at ALL.
Now we can have a rational discussion about higher ed, federal role in funding, etc. etc. But essentially this rule upends 60+ years of business model and throws up hands to "you guys figure it out". They will - by draconian cuts, tuition increases and likely a whole bunch of Post-docs let go.
My only additional comment is that there has been tremendous administrative bloat at UC (and other universities) and I can't help but wonder to what extent (if any) that is being passed along as an indirect research expense. Again - I don't know but I do wonder.
In my case, my indirect went from 12% to 52% in two years. Our guys would not have been so bold as to ask for that big an increase. Instead, the grantor let them know that they had acceded to those levels for others, so why shouldn't our univ. So,... In other management fields, this is called whipsawing.
