Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana context about this story:
Indiana University School of Medicine researchers received more than $243 million in total funding from the National Institutes of Health during federal fiscal year 2023—a more than $54 million increase over the past five years, or 28%, a university press release said. Data for fiscal year 2024 could not immediately be confirmed.
A press release said this makes the IU School of Medicine No. 13 in NIH funding among all public medical schools in the country and No. 29 among all schools nationally—both a record best for the school.
According to data from a report by United for Medical Research, every $1 million in NIH funding awarded to Indiana researchers in 2022 created nearly 13 jobs, the income and other associated expenses from which generated $2.76 million in economic activity in the state. Based on that data, the IU School of Medicine’s 2023 NIH funding is responsible for creating about 3,142 jobs and an estimated $672 million in annual economic activity in Indiana—more than half of the estimated total $1.02 billion in economic activity generated in Indiana from all NIH funding in the state.
A federal judge on Monday prevented the National Institutes of Health from changing the percentage that universities and medical schools are paid in facilities and administrative costs in 22 states that filed a lawsuit, blocking a decision that was rebuked by academic institutions throughout the country and members of Congress.
Indiana was not part of the lawsuit. The Indiana Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the case and whether it planned any legal action involving NIH funding.
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts entered the brief, two-page order, which “shall remain in effect until further order of this Court.” Kelley set an in-person hearing date for Feb. 21.
The order followed a long weekend of speculation as research universities and medical schools grappled with how to implement a major change in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health that they warn could curtail breakthroughs or halt projects altogether, and that a senior Democrat in Congress called “nothing short of catastrophic.”
The NIH announced Friday that it would cap “Facilities and Administrative” costs at 15%, a significant reduction for many institutions that use grants from the federal agency to conduct research into some of the more daunting health diagnoses, like Alzheimer’s and cancer.
The NIH said the policy change regarding so-called “indirect costs” is intended to align how much the federal government spends on those items with how much certain private organizations that provide research grants allocate.
Attorneys general from 22 states filed suit Monday to prevent it from going into effect, leading to Judge Kelley’s ruling. Kelley was appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden.
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, is also looking to halt its implementation.
“This morning, I called Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, to express my strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts in funding for vital research at our Maine institutions, which are known for their excellence,” Collins wrote in a statement. “He has promised that as soon as he is confirmed, he will re-examine this initiative that was implemented prior to his confirmation.”
The NIH, based in Bethesda, Maryland, writes on its website that it provides about “50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state.”
Medical colleges warn lights in labs will go out
The court case follows universities and medical schools saying the change would harm research into all types of diseases and lawmakers alleging it is illegal.
Association of American Medical Colleges President David J. Skorton and Chief Scientific Officer Elena Fuentes-Afflick wrote in a joint statement the 15% cap “will diminish the nation’s research capacity, slowing scientific progress and depriving patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics, and preventative interventions.”
Facilities and Administrative costs, they wrote, “include physical lab operations and maintenance, security, data processing and storage, and daily operations of critical research infrastructure.”
“Make no mistake. This announcement will mean less research,” they wrote. “Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out. Researchers and staff will lose their jobs.
“As a result, Americans will have to wait longer for cures and our country will cede scientific breakthroughs to foreign competitors. These are real consequences–slower scientific progress, longer waits for cures, fewer jobs.”
The Association of American Medical Colleges includes 173 accredited medical schools within the U.S. and Canada.
Imperiling U.S. as world leader in innovation
Association of Public and Land Grant Universities President Mark Becker wrote in a statement that “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.”
“At public universities across the country, NIH-funded researchers are working tirelessly toward breakthroughs in treating debilitating diseases and discovering cures to deadly illnesses,” Becker wrote. “Cuts to reimbursement of these costs are cuts to medical research and represent the federal government stepping back from commitments it has made to world-leading researchers. This action will slow advances for millions of patients who desperately need critical breakthroughs and imperil the U.S.’s position as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”
APLU includes 250 public research universities, land-grant institutions and state university systems throughout the country that manage $61 billion in university-based research.
Association of American Universities President Barbara R. Snyder wrote in a statement that “Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs—also referred to as ‘indirect costs’—are real and necessary costs of conducting the groundbreaking research that has led to countless breakthroughs in the past decades.”
“A cut to F&A reimbursements for NIH grants is quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families,” Snyder wrote.
AAU includes nearly 70 universities throughout the country, including Arizona State University, The University of Iowa, The University of Kansas, University of Maryland at College Park, Michigan State University, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Oregon, The Pennsylvania State University, University of Virginia, University of Washington and The University of Wisconsin–Madison, among many others.
The NIH posted on social media that during the last year, “$9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as ‘indirect costs.’”
“Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”
Effect on Maine
A spokesperson for the University of Maine System said “walking back funding promises on activity already underway weakens Maine’s largest research enterprises, reduces access to hands-on learning opportunities for Maine students, and threatens the development of Maine-made cures, including for cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases and neuromuscular disorders.”
Samantha Warren, chief external and governmental affairs officer, wrote in a statement the University of Maine System has 23 active NIH awards, totaling $8.79 million, as well as 26 awards totaling $28.97 million that are currently pending.
The new NIH policy, she wrote, would lead to a loss of “$1.38 million in support for active UMS research programs and an additional $6.23 million associated with pending awards.”
“All of those awards include facilities and administration cost commitments at a rate agreed to by the federal government, as has been standard since the 1950s,” Warren wrote. “While sometimes referred to as ‘overhead,’ F&A support is foundational to our public universities’ research activities and covers essential expenses, including those necessary to comply with extensive federal regulations, operate and maintain our campus laboratories, and safeguard scientific discoveries from foreign adversaries.
“There is a cost of doing research, and when our public universities conduct research on the federal government’s behalf, the federal government appropriately pledges to pay a portion of our necessary costs.”
Collins said in a statement she opposes “the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH.”
“I have heard from the Jackson Laboratory, the University of Maine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, the University of New England, and MDI Biological Laboratory, among others, that these cuts, which in some cases would apply retroactively to existing grants, would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs,” Collins wrote.
She also said language in the spending bill that funds the NIH prohibits the agency from modifying its indirect costs.
“There is no investment that pays greater dividends to American families than our investment in biomedical research,” Collins wrote. “In Maine, scientists are conducting much-needed research on Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy, and on how to improve efficiency in drug discovery, helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs, and conducting many other life-enhancing or life-saving research.”
‘Nothing short of catastrophic’
Democratic members of Congress also alleged that NIH cannot make the change in policy, calling it illegal.
Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement the NIH policy change amounts to “an indiscriminate funding cut for research institutions across the country that will be nothing short of catastrophic for so much of the lifesaving research patients and families are counting on.”
“This will derail major breakthroughs by forcing research institutions—like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the University of Washington in my state—to now scramble to make up this massive shortfall, almost certainly forcing layoffs across the country,” Murray wrote. “Sick kids may not get the treatment they need. Clinical trials may be shut down abruptly with dangerous consequences. Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives.”
Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, issued a statement alleging the NIH policy change is “in direct violation of the law.”
DeLauro pointed to the last full-year spending bill that funds the NIH, including Section 224, which directly addressed indirect costs.
“In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,” DeLauro wrote. “The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.”
Lawsuit filed
Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday challenging the new NIH policy.
They wrote in their 59-page filing that “(h)igh-level research requires funds not just for the costs that can be directly attributed to the specific work of a particular project, but also the indirect costs that support multiple projects.”
“These costs are broken up into ‘facilities’ and ‘administration’ costs. For example, in order to conduct research, a university needs buildings, and needs to maintain those buildings and supply them with heat and electricity,” the attorneys general wrote.
“And university staff need administrative support, including clerical staff, IT support, cybersecurity and data repositories, as well as staff to administer the university as a whole,” they wrote. “Again, these administrative costs support the university as a whole, and help make research possible without being attributable to any specific grant or project.”
Decreasing the Facilities and Administrative costs to 15% will have “immediate and devastating” impacts on universities and researchers throughout the country, the attorneys general wrote.
“This agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory closures,” they wrote. “NIH’s extraordinary attempt to disrupt all existing and future grants not only poses an immediate threat to the nation’s research infrastructure, but will also have a long-lasting impact on its research capabilities and its ability to provide life-saving breakthroughs in scientific research.”
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
We have entered an elevated era wherein unelected Federal District Courts have now assumed the unconstitutional domain of legislative and EXECUTIVE powers. It needs to drastically corrected thru Congress by either existing remedies or new ones.
The notion of a Federal Judge intervening in Executive Branch budget decisions seems questionable, particularly when every proposed reduction gets labeled as ‘catastrophic.’ It’s ironic that we’re so concerned about these cuts when our massive deficit spending is already imposing a tremendous burden on future generations. Isn’t the deficit spending ‘catastrophic’ as well? Is this what judicial overreach looks like? Seems like the court system is being weaponized to make sure President Trump doesn’t succeed at all costs.