The decision of Trump’s administration to reduce directing costs related to research funded by federally encouraged a huge return. But some doctors praise the move, suggesting that they will help “optimize” how dollars of taxpayers use when it comes to scientific research.
The new rule of Trump administration that entered into force on Monday, limited plants and administrative costs, also known as “indirect costs”, at 15% for federal funded research scholarships that provided National Health Institutes (NIH). When the additional percentage is awarded to the scientist, on top of the awarded research funding, Going to the facility placed their work to cover these “indirect costs”.
According to the announcement of the new restriction on the financing of Trump’s administration, this percentage historically was about 27% to 28% for each support. But in some cases, negotiated rates can be as many as 70 to 90%, according to doctors who spoke with Fox News Digital.
“If that money is reduced to 15%, it means that there will actually be more of science aid. You will bring more money to give more science,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist and professor at the Department of epidemiology and biostistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s time,” said Dr. Erika Schwartz, founder of evolved science, which is a medical practice of Concierge in New York with more than 1500 active patients.
“Although the support of infrastructure is required, there is a space for more effective cost management. The refined financing model could divert more resources to directing research activities with maintenance of essential support services. This could increase the number of funding Research projects And accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately used directly to patients. “
HHS will review programs, regulations to ensure that taxpayers’ funds do not pay election abortions
Dr. Erika Schwartz is the founder of the New York -based practice, an evolved science that uses new therapies to improve patients’ results.
Prasada set it up Universities and research institutions They have negotiated “dear bids” that allow them to collapse into funds that are sometimes not necessary for research. In order to show his position, he explained the numbers for a research institution that negotiated 57% rate for indirect costs:
“Let’s say i get $ 100,000 [for a research project] And I need a lab … I get $ 100,000, and then they still get $ 57,000 to the university that goes to the administrators, and probably the fact that I have a laboratory bench and lights, etc. But now let’s just say I am doing the same project 100,000 USD, but my project is that we will Analyze the Genomic sequences from the internet storage. So, I only have a laptop … but they still get $ 57,000, although this person is not literally given space. No bench, no table, there’s nothing. “
The pig added that another “fundamental problem” with these negotiating rates is that money is not formally budget, so “the American people do not know where that money goes.”
Doge cancel the funding of the Fauci Museum exhibition
“Once a well -known researcher told me, the dollar is more valuable than any other dollar because they can use it for any purpose they want. Although, nominally, they should use it to keep the light and, you know, make the buildings start, but that It’s not always the case, “he said.
Dr. Vinay Prasad is a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
David Whes, former health care writer for Forbes who spent time working in hospitals and now works in a healthcare consultation, repeated that concern in the post on X, who claimed that universities used indirect payments for “Pocket Money” .
“They are indirectly just ways to invest the rich academic hospitals the money their investigators have won and then created Slah for those who are not able to finance on their own,” Whelan wrote. “It’s a huge grict and a great place for cuts.”
A drop of Trump administration to indirect funding related to NOH Research Scholarships was immediately challenged in court with lawsuits of 22 General State Attorney of Democratic States and University Group, which claimed that the move “would devastate critical public health research at universities and research institutions in the State .
National Health Institutes (NIH) announced a reduced consumption of $ 9 billion in response to the new term of Trump administration. (Alamy/Getty Pictures)
“Once again, President Trump and Elon Musk operate in direct violation of the law. In this case, they cause irreparable damage to liquid research to develop medicines and treatment of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia, ALS, diabetes, mental health, mental health, mental health , mental health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases and other diseases and conditions that affect US families, “said Rosa Delauro, D-Conn., ranking a member of the Home Approval Committee. “Trump’s administration tries to steal critical funds promised by scientific research institutions he funded, despite the explicit legal prohibition against this action.”
In response to the lawsuit of the Democratic State General, the federal judge imposed a temporary restraint order banning agencies to take any steps to implement, apply or implement a new rule.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Judge’s command is also required Trump administration Agencies influenced by a new rule for submission of reports within 24 hours to confirm the steps they take in accordance with the judgment. Meanwhile, a personal person’s hearing is scheduled for February 21.
