"The proposal would reduce the more than $47 billion budget of the NIH to $27 billion โ a roughly 40 percent cut. It would consolidate NIHโs 27 institutes and centers into just eight."
The plan for NIH is in, source with full 64 page proposal for all of HHS is linked. Reported in WaPo. This is catastrophic. Reduction to 8 centers. 40% cut in budget. 15% IDC cap. This will decimate science across America open.substack.com/pub/insideme...
The regulations they got rid of are the reason you have never had to worry about mercury poisoning, just to give one tiny example. The only ones who benefit from deregulation are corporations that want to poison you so they can make even more money.
Hi! Former measles researcher here. Everything this person says is a lie or some extremely twisted version of the truth
Photos of Aedes aegypti female (left) and male (right). Numbers indicate location of collected tissues (listed in legend boxes). Photos by Alex Wild.
I am thrilled to present the Mosquito Cell Atlas! We analyzed 367K nuclei from 19 tissues in male & female mosquitoes, creating a comprehensive resource for vector biology & infectious disease research.
Plus we made some surprising discoveries! ๐ฆ๐งต
biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
1/n
Calling all Illinoisans and Chicagoans, if you believe in science, benefit from science, and stressed out abt current Federal Research Funding Cuts/Stalling- Join us on March 7th, in DOWNTOWN Chicago or Springfield. Follow #standupforscience @standupforscience.bsky.social ๐งช #AcademicSky
Great thread from @kgandersen.bsky.social about a new bill submitted to the US Senate that looks to ban some virology research. Its a nightmare read based on its vague description of "gain of function" and its application to live virus as well as other methods to study viral proteins.
1/ I am seeing a lot of comments on the slashing of NIH support along the lines of โuniversities should just spend their huge endowments.โ
Iโm the last person to cheer on the institutional stratification rising endowments have contributed to. But let me explain why this is not a solution.
Nvm yay
Breaking news: 22 states are suing to block NIHโs cutting of indirect costs.
See our updated story on the Friday night news and its aftermath. scim.ag/4hTJQ6v
Government isn't a business. The goal isn't to save money. Success isn't measured by budget surplus.
The goal is to spend money, investing in society. Every dollar spent on education, healthcare, and science is an investment in our collective wellbeing.
Iโm surprised there hasnโt been a collective lawsuit from the biggest and most well-equipped universities for a freeze on this cut to overhead costs. Now isnโt the time to โmonitor the situationโ or comply
Science has always been political and thatโs evident now more than ever
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ "๐ข๐ง๐๐ข๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ"? When I write a grant, I provide a budget of the estimated "direct" costs that it will take to complete the project. These direct costs include things like salaries (mine + my lab members), student tuition, lab supplies, computing, and specialized equipment. The "indirect" costs on NIH grants are added on top of this and they pay for things like building infrastructure, utilities (water, electricity, internet), and salaries of administrative support staff like people who help us submit the grants, safety personnel, and janitors. The description that NIH is subsidizing universities with indirects is false. These are costs that are essential to perform the research that the government has agreed to fund. Indirects are negotiated with the government ahead of time so these are mutually agreed upon numbers and can't be changed by universities (or the government) on a whim. ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ข๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ? For this, I think some numbers are helpful. If I write a $100,000 grant, my institution's indirect rate is 62.5% so the university submits a total budget of $162,500 to the NIH for the project (100k for me, 62.5k for indirect costs). The new 15% rate is supposed to be effective immediately and applied to current grants (where we already agreed on the costs) such that suddenly instead of $62,500, the NIH will only pay the university $15,000. This will simply not cover the costs of actually performing the proposed research. Remember, the government set these indirect cost numbers - they were negotiated with universities that had to prove how this money is spent and follow very strict rules about what it can be used for. Let me be clear: these changes will destroy biomedical research in the US. ๐๐ก๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐๐๐ซ๐? Most people are not scientists, so why should they care about research? Universities are often among the top employers in their cities. Even โฆ
I am starting this morning by reaching outside of my science echo chamber (posting on facebook) to explain why the NIH matters and why the new indirect rate policy will be catastrophic to everyone
Changes to NIH indirect rate will affect every state in the US. NIH funding doesnโt just enable research that finds curesโit supports jobs. Visit here to see how much in direct benefits your state receives reporter.nih.gov
Section 224 of Public Law (PL) 118โ47 as carried forward by PL 118-158: SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall continue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise made available to the Department of Health and Human Services or to any department or agency may be used to develop or implement a modified approach to such provisions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in such quarter.
Here's a very important update from the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) on the proposed cuts to NIH Indirect costs: "Every year since 2017, the annual spending bill that funds NIH has included language prohibiting the Administration from making changes to F&A cost rates" 1/2 ๐งช
Executive wants to frame the NIH indirects cut as $4B in savings.
But given that NIH returns $2.5 on every $1 investment, this would actually cost US economy a net $6 BILLION (per year!). Not to mention the human costs of wrecking education and research sectors and the communities they serve.
NEW: The N.I.H. will cut about $4 Billion from federal research grants that support cancer, virus and heart disease research.
#Project2025 called for the cuts to end subsidies to "leftist" university agendas.
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/u...
New news analysis from me:
The prospect of legal challenges to President Trumpโs purges may be a feature, not a bug, for adherents of sweeping presidential authority.
www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/u...
Yes, this administration is dangerous and cruel, but they are also shockingly dim and incompetent.
Opportunities are everywhere.
Make everything as hard as possible. Resist every demand. Refuse entry without a warrant. Donโt take the buyout. Their problem solving skills are ๐
The US Constitution does not grant the President this unilateral authority.
In Illinois, we will stand against unlawful actions that would harm millions of working families, children, and seniors.
Especially now, with H5N1 influenza infections increasing and so many unknowns that need to be addressed through scientific research, this is not the time to halt virology research. Gift article: www.wsj.com/health/trump...
In #biotech #stocks news, Donald Trumpโs return to the White House is already having a big impact at the $47.4 billion U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), with the new administration imposing a wide range of restrictions, including the abrupt cancellation of grant review panels.
Obviously in addition to the loud of scientific advancement. But you have to meet these people where theyโre at
Shutting down medical research โ not just within NIH, but everywhere thatโs funded by NIH โ will have long-term effects on medicine & short-term effects on state, higher education & hospital budgets. This affects all of us, not just researchers.
All NIH study sections canceled indefinitely. This will halt science and devastate research budgets in universities.
Universities are often the biggest employers in cities/states. Cutting NIH funding that pays for many of those employees will have major economic consequences. Call your representatives.
Screenshot showing that Arizona currently has $490,436,626 in NIH funding.
Never imagined Iโd have to say this, but if you want to have a look at NIH RePORTER to see how much NIH funding your state receives so you can write to your elected representatives, youโd better do it now, and get a screenshot.
