Explaining the impact of the cut on NIH indirects

What no one else is saying...

There are lots of substacks on this topic now, but most of them restrict comments to paid subscribers only (and I’m just trying to save my money for when my job goes under, which this NIH policy could do)… So I’m going to offer my perspective here. For those that don’t know, I am a university professor at a research-intensive university. Most of my salary comes from NIH grants.

Refresher - what are NIH indirects? Universities / reserach institutions tack on an additional percentage on top of the actual research budget of a research grant. The budget includes salaries for faculty, research staff, supplies, and research-related travel. Universities take that total and charge a percentage (usually 60+%) on top. Those dollars are intended to support infrastructure, like electricity and building maintanance, and non-research support staff.

Is 60%+ too much? Probably. Keep in mind that is a flat rate, no matter what the grant is doing. Also keep in mind that there are probably plenty of campus workers that never returned to the office after COVID…

Is 15% too little? Probably.

Will this lead universities to reduce bloat and be more financially responsible? My fear is that cuts will be made in all the wrong places. That is the purpose of this substack.

State universities are required by law to publish the salaries of their staff, since they are state-employees. Non-profit universities are also apparently required to do the same. In your spare time, look them up. We’re talking 6 and 7 figures. Some of these might be high level faculty, but some are high level administrators and legal support… what are they being paid to do? Also keep in mind that NIH budgets cap salaries - so if a faculty person makes more than ~$225,000, that money comes from something other than the NIH grant…

Also take a close look at the various titles of associate and assistant deans. You might find lots of “diversity” departments. Those diversity departments put lots of training modules in place, make sure that faculty searches attract and interview enough diverse faculty… again, take a wild guess where those salaries are paid from.

Then there are also various other offices that put “compliance training” in place. Things like teaching me where to go if I hear of sexual misconduct, research misconduct, academic freedom of speech (that’s a good one lol!) etc. In other words, these offices create work for people like me to keep themselves in a job. Where do you think those salaries are paid from?

Then there are staff positions that do actual work, like accounting and every day support, the people that clean the building, security, etc. These people do not make much but they have important roles.

So while the world is bragging about how awesome these indirect cuts are, and how this will force universities to cut the fat… I think they are going to go for these lower paid admin positions first. Let’s hurt the people doing the actual work. Because do you really think the high level deanlets, compliance officers, etc are going to be cut?

So what do I think is the proper course of action? Cutting indirects without some sort of guidance/oversight for the universities is asking for trouble. What they should do is make sure that the 15% (or 25% or whatever) indirect cost recovery goes towards costs that directly support those research grants. Support staff that manage the finances, computer staff that maintain the servers, electricity and warm buildings - prioritize those. Without guidance, we’re going to hear a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth of how those are the costs that will need to be cut even though those are the most justifiable costs to keep.