Biomedical research in the United States has long been recognized as one of the best in the world, and this is in large part thanks to the collaboration between universities and the federal government. This partnership has been crucial in supporting and advancing the country’s research excellence. However, recent discussions around indirect costs have raised concerns about the future of this collaboration and the impact it could have on the nation’s research efforts.
Indirect costs, also known as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, are the expenses associated with conducting research such as laboratory space, equipment, utilities, and administrative support. These costs are not directly related to a specific research project, but they are essential for the overall research infrastructure and environment. In the United States, universities receive reimbursement for these costs through grants from the federal government.
On February 10, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that aims to cap indirect costs at 20% of a research grant’s total budget. This proposal has sparked concern and opposition from universities and the scientific community, who argue that it could have a detrimental impact on the research enterprise in the country.
The current system of reimbursing indirect costs has been in place since the 1950s and has been a crucial factor in the success of America’s research efforts. It has allowed universities to invest in state-of-the-art facilities, recruit top-notch researchers, and provide necessary support services to carry out cutting-edge research. This, in turn, has attracted top talent from around the world, making the United States a hub for scientific innovation and discovery.
The proposed cap on indirect costs would have a significant impact on the ability of universities to maintain and improve their research infrastructure. It could lead to a reduction in the quality of facilities and services, making it challenging to attract and retain top researchers. This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on the overall research output of the country.
Moreover, the proposed cap ignores the fact that the indirect costs of research can vary significantly depending on the discipline, location, and size of the project. For example, research in the medical field may require more expensive facilities and equipment compared to research in social sciences. A one-size-fits-all approach to indirect costs could undermine the diversity and breadth of research in the country.
The proposed change also goes against the fundamental principle of the partnership between universities and the government. This partnership has always been based on the understanding that the federal government will support the full cost of research, including indirect costs. By capping indirect costs, the government would be shifting a significant financial burden onto universities, jeopardizing the future of this critical collaboration.
Furthermore, limiting indirect costs could have a severe impact on the training and development of future scientists. Many universities rely on the reimbursement of indirect costs to fund graduate and postdoctoral training programs. These programs are essential for nurturing the next generation of researchers and ensuring the continued success of the country’s research enterprise.
In addition to the potential negative impact on research, capping indirect costs could also have economic consequences. The United States’ leadership in research has not only led to groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in various fields but has also contributed significantly to the country’s economic growth. The proposed cap could hinder the country’s ability to remain at the forefront of innovation, potentially leading to a decline in economic competitiveness.
It is crucial to note that the proposed change to indirect costs is not a new issue. It has been a topic of debate for many years, and several studies have been conducted to understand the true impact of indirect costs on the federal budget. These studies have consistently shown that indirect costs are not only essential for the success of research but also represent a small fraction of the total federal budget.
In conclusion, the partnership between universities and the federal government has been a cornerstone of America’s research excellence. The proposed cap on indirect costs could jeopardize this partnership and have significant consequences for the country’s research efforts and economic growth. It is essential to recognize the critical role that indirect costs play in supporting the country’s research enterprise and to ensure that this partnership is protected and strengthened for the benefit of all.
