One of the things we didn’t have space for in this article is something I don’t see many people talking about: we constantly complain that “big pharma” is biased and only does research that creates drugs that will profit them. So then the alternative to the drug companies funding the studies is to get government funding for it. If we want to eliminate or reduce both of these things, where does that leave us?
To add to this point, I often hear that the tradeoff to not having socialized medical care is that we have more funds for research and more incentive for innovative care. This reduced funding for NIH seems to cut directly at the innovation we have purported to value.
I did cancer research during my PhD (see my comment below about how not having grant money affected our lab) and now work for a medical device company. Many people see research funded by a company as tainted in some way, like the science is automatically not good because industry funding is involved. This is not the case! The researchers doing the work are passionate about what they are studying and want to help people. It does not benefit them to do bad science. The company I now work for collaborates with many universities/hospitals and we have a standard review process for deciding which studies to support. Yes, we have priorities that align with our interests, but guess what, so does the government! When we are involved in an external research study, our company provides funding and devices, but has no control over the data or say in how the results are presented for publication. We can review publications from the study for technical accuracy regarding our products, but that's it. We fund our own studies as well, but publications from those studies also have to go through scientific peer review before appearing in a journal and clinical trials have rigorous documentation processes that need to be followed. It is good to have transparency in where funding is coming from for research! Industry money does not equal bad data.
I also work in health sciences. It's true that pharma does great work, but it is not incentivized to do work on things that aren't profitable. The science that ultimately comes out is good, I agree, but leaving it all to pharma risks important but unprofitable research. We need people doing research on things that are just important for the general well-being of the public, profit aside.
This is what I’ve been coming back to so much lately - what is the point of government? It is fundamentally, to solve for market failures - long term, low profit (or no profit) initiatives that benefit the human race, but aren’t profitable in the quarterly expectations of Wall Street - think education (18+ years to see ROI), high tech research that is too risky for Wall Street/venture capitalists but will provide us competitive advantage at the world stage and high paying jobs eventually), environmental protections, disaster relief, national security, on and on…..
Exactly! I say this to people all the time - government is not a business and it should not be! Businesses maximize profit, and there is an important place for them in our society, but we also need government to do things that aren’t efficient or profitable because there are a lot of things that aren’t profitable or important that still need to be done.
As someone who has worked in the public sector for years, I also point out that business skills and public sector skills are not necessarily transferable, and I know that the private sector knows that because while I am very successful in the public sector, I’ve never gotten far in private sector job applications. They are different skill sets
(Also sorry if I sound cocky or this is less than coherent. I just had a medical procedure and I’m a little high)
Thank you for this Kelly! I've been in the pharmaceutical industry for years. I have worked for large, medium and start-ups. RFK Jr. caused a lot of harm by spreading misinformation that Pfizer and the government were in cahoots with the Covid vaccine, which was actually developed by German company Biontech and commercialized by Pfizer. It's hard, tireless work and it is such a slap in the face to both the pharma companies and health agencies when this type of misinformation is spread.
I am the parent to a child with intestinal failure. A halt on these grants could cost him lifesaving research. He is currently in a first of its kind study to understand quality of life for children with intestinal failure and short gut syndrome. This is to get patients and physicians both focusing on the same goal. This has been such needed research! What can I, as a mom, do to share the impacts of these decisions? Thank you for the work you do, Sharon!
This may sound strange, but also call your local news! Share your story and see if they would like to have you on. Local news in my opinion is vastly underutilized - it brings awareness to communities, and gets far more people talking about important issues - and that gets the attention of government at all levels :)
If you are comfortable sharing your story, call your senators and representatives. Every day. Email, reach out on social media, etc. How these decisions have real consequences for real people is what they need to be hearing. Even more so if they are currently supporting the administration's efforts to stop current studies. I'm so sorry to hear about your child, I hope they, and you, continue to get the care you all need.
Also, I am not an attorney, but if you have a direct link to how the decisions are currently affecting (or have affected) your child and your family, you may be able to pursue legal action. Although I know that requires a lot of time and energy and money at a time when your focus needs to be on your family.
Just as a heads up- she has good info but is very biased. Which doesn’t mean she is wrong- but biased and takes a lot of time discounting MAHA and the doctors and professionals who support it.
She actually doesn’t discount them outrightly, she discounts them when they are anti science and don’t have any info/data to back up their statements. She has stated on multiple occasions that they have some good points but terrible ways of trying to fix them.
Her instagram feed is full of her discrediting RFK Jr and MAHA. She may have great things to say in between showcasing why RFK Jr and others are grifters, but I’m not interested in hearing from someone who uses those tactics.
You’re not interested in hearing from a scientist/expert using data and facts to discredit a non scientist who doesn’t understand research studies and misinterprets them from their own personal and financial gain? That’s fine. That’s your prerogative. I’m not here to change your mind. However, I chose to listen to experts in their field when I don’t fully understand something on my own.
You’re correct. I have zero desire to see a self proclaimed anti vaxxer, who is credibly linked to the deaths of 80, mostly children, people in Samoa due to his lies about the measles vaccine. Or a man who thinks the way to fix chronic disease is to reduce regulation and take food dyes off the market. RFKJr is so dangerous!
Dr Knurick is correct, and those who claim she is “biased” are part of the problem. Science cannot be biased as much as trump and his maga cohorts would like you to believe.
I'm curious - what would reduced bias look like from a scientist for you? She's responding to the current narrative, and RFKJr/MAHA are certainly writing the public narrative at the moment. Would less bias look like, for example, her sharing her thoughts on the polio vaccine without mentioning/addressing RFKJr's thoughts on the polio vaccine?
Fair, I guess. But I think I'd also want to understand what "bashing" means to you. I've only seen a few of her videos, but it seems to me she's refuting RFKJr claims - not saying "he's so stupid" or something similar. If she DOES use her platform to speak negatively of him as a person, I totally get your standpoint. From the few videos I've seen of hers, it seems more to be that she's using her background and understanding to disagree with his statements.
She had said over and over again she (and others) are open to working with RFK Jr. and this administration to help support a healthier country and truly making an impact in the health of the nation. Her point is that RFK Jr. and other "wellness influencers" are **NOT** interested in working with actual scientists and experts in the field because if they do that all their products they are selling at extremely high prices (making loads of money off people) and propaganda they are spreading will be affected and they'd lose money. If it looks like a gift, smells like a gift and acts like a grift.....it's a grift.🤷🏼♀️
Which products are they selling? I have never bought any products from wellness MAHA influencers. I’m not clear on what those products are. Please do share. Maybe I will buy them. :)
Oh, please do. Then maybe it would help you to realize that what MAHA is selling you isn't actuality anything that truly changes the health industry. Instead, they slap their name on something, sell it for a ridiculously high price, and then sit back and laugh at everyone who bought into it. I've seen it over and over again with people in my life. Don't take my word for it, or true experts word for it. Please do seek it out yourself. Because what you're saying is that you don't like Jessica's content because she's honest about the lies that are being used to swindle people out of their money all while undermining ACTUAL scientific evidence. When you've been douped, honesty can hurt. Being uncomfortable about facts being presented doesn't discredit the facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.
I don’t like her content because all she does is tear people down that she doesn’t agree with. I have no idea what her content is other than that message.
Respectfully, there are more than two sources of research funding beyond government and pharmaceutical companies. For 13 years, I worked for the largest U.S. private funding source (a professional medical society’s foundation) supporting research and training in a specific field that impacts millions of Americans. Many similar organizations exist, collectively contributing millions of dollars (maybe more?) to medical research. While these funds don’t replace government or industry funding, they play a significant role in advancing scientific discovery and should also be a part of the broader conversation. Regardless of where anyone stands on this NIH issue, it’s worth recognizing private, nonprofit funding plays a meaningful role in medical research.
Yes, funding from non-profits and foundations exist and are important, but often times their indirect costs are already capped at 15% or some don't allow indirect costs at all. The reason why research institutions can accept those grants is because they are generally a significantly lower portion of the overall funding, making the amount the institution has to cover much less than if federal agencies like NIH cut their cap to 15%.
I don't disagree, but that also wasn't my point. Sharon wrote:
One of the things we didn’t have space for in this article is something I don’t see many people talking about: we constantly complain that “big pharma” is biased and only does research that creates drugs that will profit them. So then the alternative to the drug companies funding the studies is to get government funding for it. If we want to eliminate or reduce both of these things, where does that leave us?
The only alternative to bio/pharma funding isn't government, and vice versa. I want people to know the very important role that private (non-pharma) funding plays in advancing scientific discoveries. They are doing important, needed work. It's not an either/or, it's an and.
From your perspective, do you think these private funders would be able to step in to pick up the slack if/when this reduced funding from the government occurs? As someone who's worked in the industry, any thoughts on how government cuts may impact the industry?
Theoretically, private funding sources could decide to adjust their own indirect caps, either across the board or based on grant type. Or they could offer tiered minimum indirect cost coverage, e.g., a minimum of 20% for budgets under $1M or for institutions that have no endowments (or whatever). Do I think they (as a whole) will? Probably not, no, for many reasons - their donors and governing boards don't want to fund those expenses, they'd have to reduce the number of grants they can award in order to cover those expenses, etc.
Also based on my experience, many medical scientists acknowledge (and have long bemoaned that fact that) the NIH has bloat, that it funds studies that it doesn't need to keep funding, that some universities launder indirects, etc. The NIH is an important funding resource, especially for basic research, and its funding has contributed enormously to scientific discovery. And it's not immune from scrutiny on how best to disburse its federal funding.
I am so glad I this topic came up. I think I can help people understand indirect costs (also known as Facilities and Administration costs or F&A) at research universities. To start: I am a researcher administrator at a university and my ENTIRE job is helping faculty apply for and budget for grants. Buckle up- this is long!
A few facts to understand:
1. All research institutions and universities must have a contract negotiated with a federal agency on how much F&A they can charge on grants. If you do not, the federal government already says you can only charge 10%.
2. There are different F&A rates for different locations. There is: On-Campus/ Off -Campus Adjacent ( less than 25 or 50 miles from campus)/ off campus remote (greater than 50 miles from campus). This is to account for faculty who do research in other places besides the university. DoD contracts have a different rate. There are even rates when it’s not just research but training programs or teaching.
3. You can go to your local university’ office of Sponsored Programs or office of Research and look up their negotiated rate.
4. In each of these contracts, there are also clauses about what is EXEMPT from charging indirect costs: tuition/ grad student stipends/ university fees/ fellowship costs/ major equipment over $10,000 (was $5,000) CANNOT be assessed indirect.
5. Private contractors and for Profit research facilities (like Starlink) also have negotiated F&A rates higher than 15%.
F&A/indirect go to so much more than administrative ‘bloat’. The indirect doesn’t just go to salaries and facilities. It goes to undergrad students/grad students/materials/ summer research/ and so much more. If you have a Kid in Grad school right now, these grants help them take LESS federal loans.
How is F&A charged? When you see a university or research facility say they have a 65% indirect rate for on campus research, that looks shocking. BUT that does NOT mean 65% of the funds go to the university.
Example:
*NIH puts out a call for proposals where they say we will fund the winning projects $400,000 per year over 2 years ($800,000). This is direct and indirect costs.
How much F&A can we charge? First let’s find the direct costs:
$400,000/ 1.65 (the 65%)= 242,424 direct costs can be budgeted.
$242,424 * .65 (65%)=$157,576 indirect costs
Over two years that’s $484,848 direct costs and $315,152 for a total of $800,000. Of that only 39% ($315,152/$800,00) of the funds are for F&A. Probably lower when there are costs exempt from F&A. The other 61% goes directly to research.
If we do the same math with the 15% cap. You would find that yes 87% goes directly to research. The remaining 13% (lower if there are costs exempt from F&A) however, won’t cover the actual running of the project.
Finally: there are a HOST of restrictions on what the researchers can use the funds for. And the government does regular audits each year to ensure compliance. So no: a researcher can’t just fly first class to a conference or take a vacation with the money. Direct costs can not fund items like lab maintenance (electricity and the like), food, and office supplies, which is why there is indirect. All costs have to be reconciled and reviewed. Including cost charged to indirect.
I hope this helps people understand.
*NOTE: NIH actually does things a little more complex but for the sake of the example I put it in more simple terms.
Yes! I'm a research administrator in the central sponsored programs office at a large research university and I'm literally an indirect cost. I cannot be tied to any any specific project(s) because we work with the entire campus. One of the most important parts of my job, which is to review and submit research grant proposals, is reviewing the budget and budget justification. I help make sure budget items categorized as direct costs are allowable and that there is enough information to justify the proposed cost as a direct cost. I also respond to agencies requests for more information if/when they come up during the proposal stage. It is the researcher's job to make sure the technical piece (the science) is compelling, it is my job to make sure their science doesn't get rejected because of an administrative error. F&A costs support much more than that, but that is just one aspect of why these very real costs are necessary and not just "administrative bloat".
If anyone else reading the comments and wondering things like...is that the Meghan from MY large research university central sponsored programs office? I would be so happy if we are a secret coven of Governerds in the same office.
This is exactly what I was explaining to my husband last night. Early in my career I was involved in negotiating the rate of a major research university. It's also important to note that what you negotiate is often significantly less than what the actual costs are and the shortfall has to come from the university budget. Part of that can be covered by the endowment, but endowment funds are stipulated for very specific things in the University, not all related to research. You can't spend the balance of an endowment, you can only spend the earnings and that has to be for the purpose specified as the donor. It's not as simple as people like to make it seem.
And these contracts get renegotiated every 5-7 years. Universities typically do so much research at a cheaper cost than private companies and contractors. They actually save tax dollars.
My daughter is a researcher at Brown, and they have put a hold on all future grants, and are not sure what will happen to current funding at this point if they lose the indirect funding on all grants. They are all very worried about losing their jobs, and all of the research they have been doing.
Kris -- Thank you so much for laying this out. It is very helpful information to have in our back pockets. I would suggest that your explanation be passed on to the Trump/Musk admin principals, however, I think you would lose them at "a few facts to understand."
The immediacy and breadth of all these firings and defundings show that they are less concerned about governing and more interested in power. It’s a fear tactic. Sow chaos, create the sense that they have power over everything. An actual strategy for cutting waste could happen gradually without abandoning so many people and programs but that would require governing and they aren’t interested in others’ arguments. The cruelty is part of their strategy.
I think you are right. They aren’t interested in governing. They have the House and the Senate, so they could work for change via Congress like every other administration. This is about power. I feel like some don’t seem to care right now as they think that power will benefit them 😢
They have the House and Senate right now, so they don’t have to work for change through Congress like every other administration. They have flipped the script. However, we write the script, if we still have a pen, in the midterms.
Oh heavens. Cutting things; reducing government agencies means less power…not more. It’s not a fear tactic. It’s going in and doing what every president promises they’re going to do, but they never have because THEY have enjoyed the power (both sides of the aisle). Trump doesn’t need more power. The abruptness is difficult, I’ll admit, because even as a janitor- that’s someone’s job.
I think you’re right that cutting funding could theoretically mean less government power. However, attempting to use unchecked executive power to do so flies directly in the face of that theory. Also, Trump ultimately will pass significant tax cuts for the wealthy, so any “savings” from cut government programs will flow to the wealthy and oligarchs - who will continue to prop up the executive’s power.
Yes — the means matters as much as the ends. Power is sort of like energy. It cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred or displaced. Trump isn’t relinquishing power, he’s concentrating it in his own hands.
How do I know Trump will give tax cuts to the wealthy? It’s very much been a pillar of his campaign. And the men who benefit and send funds his way were sitting front row at his inauguration. It’s all pretty public knowledge.
Doesn’t Congress control the purse? This funding was allocated by Congress, and it’s now suddenly pulled while researchers have moved and families have started participating in these projects. This will cause people to lose jobs and patients to not get treatments. That causes fear in my book. A different way to go about this would’ve been to work through Congress and plan out budgets for next year, so people can prepare and everyone gets a say. A President was never intended to have the power to come in and re-allocate or cut $ to stuff Congress already appropriated. It’s a total loss of the checks and balances of our system. This should not be overlooked even if you voted to put that person into office. If Trump ignores the courts who rule against what he’s doing will you support that? Also “difficult” feels like a minimization of the situation. To some this is life threatening. It will cost lives and livelihoods.
Thank you for posting on this. I’m a pediatrician who works at a free standing Children’s Hospital. This is going to harm every Children’s hospital and every academic medical center across this nation. Patients will be harmed including kids, researchers will be harmed, programs will be cut, and we will see a massive brain drain of scientists going to other countries to do their research when they can’t get funded here. This feels like a purposeful attack on science and on those of us who’ve dedicated our lives to the pursuit of education to become experts in our fields. There is nothing good about these cuts. Nothing.
As a scientist, and the wife of a scientist, I'm just waiting for offers from any other country. I'm all about the brain drain. Even if it means I'm not staying and fighting here - it means I can still do research to save people's lives.
The DOGE Admin seems to be confusing “indirect” costs with “unnecessary” costs - and they are not the same thing. A smart cost-cutting approach would look at both cost buckets for potential reductions. Though indirect frequently have more opportunities for cost cutting, they are not entirely expendable. As always, though DOGE’s ultimate purpose of reducing government spending may be worthwhile, this sledgehammer approach will absolutely hurt the country. They simply don’t care who they hurt.
You've hit the nail on the head Ashley. Either they themselves are actually confused by those terms, or they realize they can easily sway public opinion by making it seem so 'simple'.
What boggles my mind is the MAHA fear mongering about “Big Pharma” when clearly these actions will only further enrich big pharma. If you want more “independent research” you should also want robust public funding of research. (Assuming you do in fact care about the health and wellness of humanity.) MAHA influencers are either intentionally misleading people for their own power (and financial gain) or so woefully misinformed they shouldn’t be relied upon for information.
Or both, Jen. I remind people as often as possible that the “wellness” industry dwarfs the pharmaceutical industry in size, and it’s completely unregulated.
Amy, bless your heart for hanging in here! It’s been less than a month, the cabinet members are still in process and yet there are so many experts here in the Preamble 💁🏼♀️. Where was all this outrage and questioning the past four years? I honestly cannot deal with being a subscriber any longer. This time it’s for good 😊
Same!! Not only are some of the commenters so negative- the content of the Preamble is focused on the target audience (left leaning and critics of the current administration) and isn’t non-partisan. I will keep reading some of the posts to expand my bubble. I have really been enjoying The Free Press and The Liberal Patriot substack for some diversity of thought.
Indirect costs also go to support PhD programs. They pay for PhD education, pay a stipend so that young researchers who work 90 hours a week in their labs don't need to get an additional job, and can eat.
The USA pays for the scientific training needed to do the "direct cost" research, and it is a very good investment.
There is a ripple effect to this, as well. I work for a software company that provides technology to nonprofits, hospitals, universities and k-12 schools. I work specifically with higher education. Customers who receive grants like these are in long term contracts with us and other tech providers and are concerned they can’t fulfill their obligations in the next few years. Of course we’ll find a way to work with them, but that means job cuts for their vendors, which of course leads to more economic strain. It’s a very unintelligent way of going about cutting spending, and to hear of elected officials cheering on the loss of jobs is really disheartening.
I’m trying hard to separate intention and impact. The intention of cutting government spending is - at face value - a needed one. We do spend money on trivial or outdated things. The impact of how we go about doing that is where elected officials are not being intelligent or strategic.
Is the government meant to function like a business? Are they apples to apples? All of this rash cutting seems to have far more ripples & impacts than just a bottom line.
This is the one that literally makes me cry, for a multitude of reasons. All of the actions of DOGE very much concern me, but this one hits close to home.
My son is in his first year of a fully funded PhD program studying BioChem. His future is bright as he is intelligent and curious and a hard worker-he can pivot and make his way whatever happens-but what these scientists are working on benefits all of us. The clinical trials that save people’s lives may one day save our own. The local economy of the university thrives when it can employ the citizens. The USA can recruit the best and the brightest to come and study here.
None of this is making us great or healthy or richer. It is doing the opposite, in fact.
Musk might be enamored of AI, but most research still needs to be done ex silico. That means that research needs labs, lights, and even bathrooms and people to clean them. Research hospitals and research universities are going to need to either shut down labs or charge patients and students to keep them going. Or replace the money with private funding. And, instead of that research being done as publicly funded, where taxpayers have some right to the data and intellectual property generated, it will be privately funded, where taxpayers have no right to the data and intellectual property. Furthermore, because private funding often requires a return on investment, much of that research will be directed to high value drug targets, not smaller treatments. This is not how you make America healthy again. It's how you put America behind in innovation while enriching pharmaceutical investors.
A dear friend has a rare disease. He raises money to fund the research, and volunteers for trials. He literally funds with his body and treasure. I contribute, and am also a “funder.” But we wouldn’t even have the option to do that if the University of Kansas wasn’t already there, and the researchers weren’t already trained. Thank you, NIH for building the labs and training the doctors. We can’t do it without you!
We are friends of a young man whose glioblastoma tumor has disappeared due to a clinical trial medication. Glioblastoma is considered incurable, yet here he is, feeling better each day. There are millions of people like him who benefit from research and to think of the number of lives that can be lost if this isn’t reversed, is heartbreaking. Yet DOGE has already paid themselves $7 million dollars within in 3 weeks. I can’t imagine that they are at all concerned about sending more funds to research, nor do I think they will bat an eye if lives are lost.
To the people who view this move as 'trimming the fat', I have to wonder if you truly understand how grants and research work at universities. My first job out of grad school was managing a 3-year, $600,000 federal suicide prevention grant at a mid-sized university. The indirect rate was probably around 25%. Different grants and programs are always coming into universities, and universities are often hard-pressed to find space on campus for these teams and individuals. Indirects help offset the costs of spacing, electricity, basic office equipment, etc. Universities typically have offices with staff that help faculty gather the extensive documentation required for grants and submit the required annual reports on grant progress. Indirects help cover these peoples' salaries and benefits, office space, etc. Indirects help cover the costs of the professional staff working on the Institutional Review Board overseeing research at universities to ensure that it is ethical and complies with all university, federal, etc. regulations. Indirects help support the cost of licensing fees for the software we used to survey our university community then process the data. Indirects helped support the admin staff who processed requests for travel to conferences where we could share findings from our project to help other universities reduce suicides on their campuses. It's especially disruptive if a rate has been agreed upon for a year or more in advance and is suddenly pulled with no advance warning. In the same way that you and I budget for our families knowing how much we expect to earn in a year, universities are doing the same. It is unreasonable to expect them to face sudden budget reductions (in many cases, in the millions of dollars) in the middle of agreed upon work periods. I am still in a higher education as a full-time faculty member (thankfully not involved in research), but I am at an R1 (highest research activity institution) in Texas. We are very concerned about the impact this will have to our faculty, institution and ultimately to our students.
To answer your initial question, No, they don't understand how grants and research work. Our elected officials are supposed to listen to their constituents on such matters. It's impossible for them to be experts on everything that impacts their constituents. And unless they have personal experience OR if constituents bring their concerns to them, they are just following marching orders from lobbyists or their party. This is backwards in how our congress and government is supposed to represent us.
With that said, those who have experience in grants and university research need to be reaching out to their elected officials to educate them on the consequences of this type of behavior! Even if we don't think they will listen, now they have the information. The ball is in their court. What they do with it is what informs us as to how we will vote and how we will inform others to vote when they are up for reelection.
UAB - University of Alabama at Birmingham would be absolutely devastated by these cuts. Tuberville does not care, nor will he ever actually care about the state that he serves, because he doesn't even live here. He also has zero clue what he's talking about. The fact that he refers to himself as "Coach" on his senatorial contact site says everything.
What qualifications does Musk and his team even have to make these decisions? Cutting government spending can be done legally and thoughtfully without upending millions of lives around the world at once. This process is being done without empathy and I imagine without context of what the actual spending is for.
One of the things we didn’t have space for in this article is something I don’t see many people talking about: we constantly complain that “big pharma” is biased and only does research that creates drugs that will profit them. So then the alternative to the drug companies funding the studies is to get government funding for it. If we want to eliminate or reduce both of these things, where does that leave us?
To add to this point, I often hear that the tradeoff to not having socialized medical care is that we have more funds for research and more incentive for innovative care. This reduced funding for NIH seems to cut directly at the innovation we have purported to value.
I did cancer research during my PhD (see my comment below about how not having grant money affected our lab) and now work for a medical device company. Many people see research funded by a company as tainted in some way, like the science is automatically not good because industry funding is involved. This is not the case! The researchers doing the work are passionate about what they are studying and want to help people. It does not benefit them to do bad science. The company I now work for collaborates with many universities/hospitals and we have a standard review process for deciding which studies to support. Yes, we have priorities that align with our interests, but guess what, so does the government! When we are involved in an external research study, our company provides funding and devices, but has no control over the data or say in how the results are presented for publication. We can review publications from the study for technical accuracy regarding our products, but that's it. We fund our own studies as well, but publications from those studies also have to go through scientific peer review before appearing in a journal and clinical trials have rigorous documentation processes that need to be followed. It is good to have transparency in where funding is coming from for research! Industry money does not equal bad data.
“Everything is a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works”
Thanks for taking the time to explain this!
I also work in health sciences. It's true that pharma does great work, but it is not incentivized to do work on things that aren't profitable. The science that ultimately comes out is good, I agree, but leaving it all to pharma risks important but unprofitable research. We need people doing research on things that are just important for the general well-being of the public, profit aside.
Totally agree! We definitely need both to have a robust scientific and medical research community.
This is what I’ve been coming back to so much lately - what is the point of government? It is fundamentally, to solve for market failures - long term, low profit (or no profit) initiatives that benefit the human race, but aren’t profitable in the quarterly expectations of Wall Street - think education (18+ years to see ROI), high tech research that is too risky for Wall Street/venture capitalists but will provide us competitive advantage at the world stage and high paying jobs eventually), environmental protections, disaster relief, national security, on and on…..
Exactly! I say this to people all the time - government is not a business and it should not be! Businesses maximize profit, and there is an important place for them in our society, but we also need government to do things that aren’t efficient or profitable because there are a lot of things that aren’t profitable or important that still need to be done.
As someone who has worked in the public sector for years, I also point out that business skills and public sector skills are not necessarily transferable, and I know that the private sector knows that because while I am very successful in the public sector, I’ve never gotten far in private sector job applications. They are different skill sets
(Also sorry if I sound cocky or this is less than coherent. I just had a medical procedure and I’m a little high)
Thank you for this Kelly! I've been in the pharmaceutical industry for years. I have worked for large, medium and start-ups. RFK Jr. caused a lot of harm by spreading misinformation that Pfizer and the government were in cahoots with the Covid vaccine, which was actually developed by German company Biontech and commercialized by Pfizer. It's hard, tireless work and it is such a slap in the face to both the pharma companies and health agencies when this type of misinformation is spread.
This is really helpful, thank you for sharing!
I'm glad! You're welcome!
I am the parent to a child with intestinal failure. A halt on these grants could cost him lifesaving research. He is currently in a first of its kind study to understand quality of life for children with intestinal failure and short gut syndrome. This is to get patients and physicians both focusing on the same goal. This has been such needed research! What can I, as a mom, do to share the impacts of these decisions? Thank you for the work you do, Sharon!
This may sound strange, but also call your local news! Share your story and see if they would like to have you on. Local news in my opinion is vastly underutilized - it brings awareness to communities, and gets far more people talking about important issues - and that gets the attention of government at all levels :)
If you are comfortable sharing your story, call your senators and representatives. Every day. Email, reach out on social media, etc. How these decisions have real consequences for real people is what they need to be hearing. Even more so if they are currently supporting the administration's efforts to stop current studies. I'm so sorry to hear about your child, I hope they, and you, continue to get the care you all need.
Also, I am not an attorney, but if you have a direct link to how the decisions are currently affecting (or have affected) your child and your family, you may be able to pursue legal action. Although I know that requires a lot of time and energy and money at a time when your focus needs to be on your family.
Dr. Jessica Knurick has a great post on this and the pros and cons of each place the funding could come from. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFNx8xRvZYL/?igsh=MTY0ZGN1Z2Vud2QzeA==
Just as a heads up- she has good info but is very biased. Which doesn’t mean she is wrong- but biased and takes a lot of time discounting MAHA and the doctors and professionals who support it.
She actually doesn’t discount them outrightly, she discounts them when they are anti science and don’t have any info/data to back up their statements. She has stated on multiple occasions that they have some good points but terrible ways of trying to fix them.
Her instagram feed is full of her discrediting RFK Jr and MAHA. She may have great things to say in between showcasing why RFK Jr and others are grifters, but I’m not interested in hearing from someone who uses those tactics.
You’re not interested in hearing from a scientist/expert using data and facts to discredit a non scientist who doesn’t understand research studies and misinterprets them from their own personal and financial gain? That’s fine. That’s your prerogative. I’m not here to change your mind. However, I chose to listen to experts in their field when I don’t fully understand something on my own.
EVERYONE should be discounting RFK Jr. I can’t believe we actually live in a country where his chances of being HHS secretary even exist.
You’re correct. I have zero desire to see a self proclaimed anti vaxxer, who is credibly linked to the deaths of 80, mostly children, people in Samoa due to his lies about the measles vaccine. Or a man who thinks the way to fix chronic disease is to reduce regulation and take food dyes off the market. RFKJr is so dangerous!
We do and it’s looking very good he will be confirmed. Thank god.
If one person is lying, and another can prove it, you're not interested in hearing from the second party?
How does she prove someone is lying? I am not following your question or your point.
Dr Knurick is correct, and those who claim she is “biased” are part of the problem. Science cannot be biased as much as trump and his maga cohorts would like you to believe.
Science certainly can be biased in many different ways.
I'm curious - what would reduced bias look like from a scientist for you? She's responding to the current narrative, and RFKJr/MAHA are certainly writing the public narrative at the moment. Would less bias look like, for example, her sharing her thoughts on the polio vaccine without mentioning/addressing RFKJr's thoughts on the polio vaccine?
It would look like less bashing of people that hold different beliefs.
Fair, I guess. But I think I'd also want to understand what "bashing" means to you. I've only seen a few of her videos, but it seems to me she's refuting RFKJr claims - not saying "he's so stupid" or something similar. If she DOES use her platform to speak negatively of him as a person, I totally get your standpoint. From the few videos I've seen of hers, it seems more to be that she's using her background and understanding to disagree with his statements.
I appreciate your approach and your perspective on here, Ashley.
To give an example, here she is going after his wife. Completely unnecessary and to me, does not show him (or her) as a grifter.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DFWDNWuzqYI/?igsh=bjlnbmc2eTFteXA4
Is your definition of biased “opposing viewpoint?”
No it isn’t. And Biased doesn’t mean wrong either. Everyone has biases.
She had said over and over again she (and others) are open to working with RFK Jr. and this administration to help support a healthier country and truly making an impact in the health of the nation. Her point is that RFK Jr. and other "wellness influencers" are **NOT** interested in working with actual scientists and experts in the field because if they do that all their products they are selling at extremely high prices (making loads of money off people) and propaganda they are spreading will be affected and they'd lose money. If it looks like a gift, smells like a gift and acts like a grift.....it's a grift.🤷🏼♀️
Which products are they selling? I have never bought any products from wellness MAHA influencers. I’m not clear on what those products are. Please do share. Maybe I will buy them. :)
Oh, please do. Then maybe it would help you to realize that what MAHA is selling you isn't actuality anything that truly changes the health industry. Instead, they slap their name on something, sell it for a ridiculously high price, and then sit back and laugh at everyone who bought into it. I've seen it over and over again with people in my life. Don't take my word for it, or true experts word for it. Please do seek it out yourself. Because what you're saying is that you don't like Jessica's content because she's honest about the lies that are being used to swindle people out of their money all while undermining ACTUAL scientific evidence. When you've been douped, honesty can hurt. Being uncomfortable about facts being presented doesn't discredit the facts. Facts don't care about your feelings.
I don’t like her content because all she does is tear people down that she doesn’t agree with. I have no idea what her content is other than that message.
I’m still unclear on the products they are selling. Are you familiar or are you just reciting what she tells you to think?
(Cont.) Thank God! And also for Tulsi’s confirmation today!! And Kash’s coming soon.
I know! It was a great day! :) So excited about Tulsi!
Respectfully, there are more than two sources of research funding beyond government and pharmaceutical companies. For 13 years, I worked for the largest U.S. private funding source (a professional medical society’s foundation) supporting research and training in a specific field that impacts millions of Americans. Many similar organizations exist, collectively contributing millions of dollars (maybe more?) to medical research. While these funds don’t replace government or industry funding, they play a significant role in advancing scientific discovery and should also be a part of the broader conversation. Regardless of where anyone stands on this NIH issue, it’s worth recognizing private, nonprofit funding plays a meaningful role in medical research.
Yes, funding from non-profits and foundations exist and are important, but often times their indirect costs are already capped at 15% or some don't allow indirect costs at all. The reason why research institutions can accept those grants is because they are generally a significantly lower portion of the overall funding, making the amount the institution has to cover much less than if federal agencies like NIH cut their cap to 15%.
I don't disagree, but that also wasn't my point. Sharon wrote:
One of the things we didn’t have space for in this article is something I don’t see many people talking about: we constantly complain that “big pharma” is biased and only does research that creates drugs that will profit them. So then the alternative to the drug companies funding the studies is to get government funding for it. If we want to eliminate or reduce both of these things, where does that leave us?
The only alternative to bio/pharma funding isn't government, and vice versa. I want people to know the very important role that private (non-pharma) funding plays in advancing scientific discoveries. They are doing important, needed work. It's not an either/or, it's an and.
From your perspective, do you think these private funders would be able to step in to pick up the slack if/when this reduced funding from the government occurs? As someone who's worked in the industry, any thoughts on how government cuts may impact the industry?
Theoretically, private funding sources could decide to adjust their own indirect caps, either across the board or based on grant type. Or they could offer tiered minimum indirect cost coverage, e.g., a minimum of 20% for budgets under $1M or for institutions that have no endowments (or whatever). Do I think they (as a whole) will? Probably not, no, for many reasons - their donors and governing boards don't want to fund those expenses, they'd have to reduce the number of grants they can award in order to cover those expenses, etc.
Also based on my experience, many medical scientists acknowledge (and have long bemoaned that fact that) the NIH has bloat, that it funds studies that it doesn't need to keep funding, that some universities launder indirects, etc. The NIH is an important funding resource, especially for basic research, and its funding has contributed enormously to scientific discovery. And it's not immune from scrutiny on how best to disburse its federal funding.
I am so glad I this topic came up. I think I can help people understand indirect costs (also known as Facilities and Administration costs or F&A) at research universities. To start: I am a researcher administrator at a university and my ENTIRE job is helping faculty apply for and budget for grants. Buckle up- this is long!
A few facts to understand:
1. All research institutions and universities must have a contract negotiated with a federal agency on how much F&A they can charge on grants. If you do not, the federal government already says you can only charge 10%.
2. There are different F&A rates for different locations. There is: On-Campus/ Off -Campus Adjacent ( less than 25 or 50 miles from campus)/ off campus remote (greater than 50 miles from campus). This is to account for faculty who do research in other places besides the university. DoD contracts have a different rate. There are even rates when it’s not just research but training programs or teaching.
3. You can go to your local university’ office of Sponsored Programs or office of Research and look up their negotiated rate.
4. In each of these contracts, there are also clauses about what is EXEMPT from charging indirect costs: tuition/ grad student stipends/ university fees/ fellowship costs/ major equipment over $10,000 (was $5,000) CANNOT be assessed indirect.
5. Private contractors and for Profit research facilities (like Starlink) also have negotiated F&A rates higher than 15%.
F&A/indirect go to so much more than administrative ‘bloat’. The indirect doesn’t just go to salaries and facilities. It goes to undergrad students/grad students/materials/ summer research/ and so much more. If you have a Kid in Grad school right now, these grants help them take LESS federal loans.
How is F&A charged? When you see a university or research facility say they have a 65% indirect rate for on campus research, that looks shocking. BUT that does NOT mean 65% of the funds go to the university.
Example:
*NIH puts out a call for proposals where they say we will fund the winning projects $400,000 per year over 2 years ($800,000). This is direct and indirect costs.
How much F&A can we charge? First let’s find the direct costs:
$400,000/ 1.65 (the 65%)= 242,424 direct costs can be budgeted.
$242,424 * .65 (65%)=$157,576 indirect costs
Over two years that’s $484,848 direct costs and $315,152 for a total of $800,000. Of that only 39% ($315,152/$800,00) of the funds are for F&A. Probably lower when there are costs exempt from F&A. The other 61% goes directly to research.
If we do the same math with the 15% cap. You would find that yes 87% goes directly to research. The remaining 13% (lower if there are costs exempt from F&A) however, won’t cover the actual running of the project.
Finally: there are a HOST of restrictions on what the researchers can use the funds for. And the government does regular audits each year to ensure compliance. So no: a researcher can’t just fly first class to a conference or take a vacation with the money. Direct costs can not fund items like lab maintenance (electricity and the like), food, and office supplies, which is why there is indirect. All costs have to be reconciled and reviewed. Including cost charged to indirect.
I hope this helps people understand.
*NOTE: NIH actually does things a little more complex but for the sake of the example I put it in more simple terms.
Thank you for taking the time to write all this out!
Happy to help. This issue is being closely monitored by a lot of universities right now.
Yes! I'm a research administrator in the central sponsored programs office at a large research university and I'm literally an indirect cost. I cannot be tied to any any specific project(s) because we work with the entire campus. One of the most important parts of my job, which is to review and submit research grant proposals, is reviewing the budget and budget justification. I help make sure budget items categorized as direct costs are allowable and that there is enough information to justify the proposed cost as a direct cost. I also respond to agencies requests for more information if/when they come up during the proposal stage. It is the researcher's job to make sure the technical piece (the science) is compelling, it is my job to make sure their science doesn't get rejected because of an administrative error. F&A costs support much more than that, but that is just one aspect of why these very real costs are necessary and not just "administrative bloat".
If anyone else reading the comments and wondering things like...is that the Meghan from MY large research university central sponsored programs office? I would be so happy if we are a secret coven of Governerds in the same office.
Hee-hee. Wouldn't that be delightful?
Thank you so much for detailing this.
Also worth noting:
* Many direct costs are capped and subsidized by the institution (faculty salary, post doc support)
* Orgs with lower rates often let us direct charge related administration
* Certain large awards demand a level of cost sharing direct to be competitive
* Many admin costs are already capped or negated to be included part of FA during negotiation
* Because the rate lags behind we are always battling inflation variance
THANKS! There is so much I could say about how grants run at universities, but that would take more time than any of us have! LOL
I feel you. My husband has had to listen nonstop to my "and ALSO" rantings over the nuances of F&A since Friday over this. Poor guy.
This is exactly what I was explaining to my husband last night. Early in my career I was involved in negotiating the rate of a major research university. It's also important to note that what you negotiate is often significantly less than what the actual costs are and the shortfall has to come from the university budget. Part of that can be covered by the endowment, but endowment funds are stipulated for very specific things in the University, not all related to research. You can't spend the balance of an endowment, you can only spend the earnings and that has to be for the purpose specified as the donor. It's not as simple as people like to make it seem.
And these contracts get renegotiated every 5-7 years. Universities typically do so much research at a cheaper cost than private companies and contractors. They actually save tax dollars.
My daughter is a researcher at Brown, and they have put a hold on all future grants, and are not sure what will happen to current funding at this point if they lose the indirect funding on all grants. They are all very worried about losing their jobs, and all of the research they have been doing.
Kris -- Thank you so much for laying this out. It is very helpful information to have in our back pockets. I would suggest that your explanation be passed on to the Trump/Musk admin principals, however, I think you would lose them at "a few facts to understand."
HAHAHA! Agreed..
This is really good information. Thank you.
The immediacy and breadth of all these firings and defundings show that they are less concerned about governing and more interested in power. It’s a fear tactic. Sow chaos, create the sense that they have power over everything. An actual strategy for cutting waste could happen gradually without abandoning so many people and programs but that would require governing and they aren’t interested in others’ arguments. The cruelty is part of their strategy.
I think you are right. They aren’t interested in governing. They have the House and the Senate, so they could work for change via Congress like every other administration. This is about power. I feel like some don’t seem to care right now as they think that power will benefit them 😢
They have the House and Senate right now, so they don’t have to work for change through Congress like every other administration. They have flipped the script. However, we write the script, if we still have a pen, in the midterms.
You've got it right Kelley! Cruelty, chaos, and fear to gain power.
Oh heavens. Cutting things; reducing government agencies means less power…not more. It’s not a fear tactic. It’s going in and doing what every president promises they’re going to do, but they never have because THEY have enjoyed the power (both sides of the aisle). Trump doesn’t need more power. The abruptness is difficult, I’ll admit, because even as a janitor- that’s someone’s job.
I think you’re right that cutting funding could theoretically mean less government power. However, attempting to use unchecked executive power to do so flies directly in the face of that theory. Also, Trump ultimately will pass significant tax cuts for the wealthy, so any “savings” from cut government programs will flow to the wealthy and oligarchs - who will continue to prop up the executive’s power.
Yes — the means matters as much as the ends. Power is sort of like energy. It cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred or displaced. Trump isn’t relinquishing power, he’s concentrating it in his own hands.
How do you know this?
How do I know Trump will give tax cuts to the wealthy? It’s very much been a pillar of his campaign. And the men who benefit and send funds his way were sitting front row at his inauguration. It’s all pretty public knowledge.
Cutting funding by percentages is the least intelligent way to reduce spending/waste/fraud, etc.
And by least intelligent, I mean stupid.
Doesn’t Congress control the purse? This funding was allocated by Congress, and it’s now suddenly pulled while researchers have moved and families have started participating in these projects. This will cause people to lose jobs and patients to not get treatments. That causes fear in my book. A different way to go about this would’ve been to work through Congress and plan out budgets for next year, so people can prepare and everyone gets a say. A President was never intended to have the power to come in and re-allocate or cut $ to stuff Congress already appropriated. It’s a total loss of the checks and balances of our system. This should not be overlooked even if you voted to put that person into office. If Trump ignores the courts who rule against what he’s doing will you support that? Also “difficult” feels like a minimization of the situation. To some this is life threatening. It will cost lives and livelihoods.
Margaux, Thank you for pointing out language.
“The abruptness is difficult”
“Even as a janitor”
He's using a baseball bat when he could have used a scalpel. Why? To break things. To sow chaos. To exert power.
And as someone replied below, Congress holds the power to allocate funds. A president cannot just decide to unilaterally cut already allocated monies.
Thank you for posting on this. I’m a pediatrician who works at a free standing Children’s Hospital. This is going to harm every Children’s hospital and every academic medical center across this nation. Patients will be harmed including kids, researchers will be harmed, programs will be cut, and we will see a massive brain drain of scientists going to other countries to do their research when they can’t get funded here. This feels like a purposeful attack on science and on those of us who’ve dedicated our lives to the pursuit of education to become experts in our fields. There is nothing good about these cuts. Nothing.
As a scientist, and the wife of a scientist, I'm just waiting for offers from any other country. I'm all about the brain drain. Even if it means I'm not staying and fighting here - it means I can still do research to save people's lives.
Dr. Greenwell, Thank you for your dedication to the common good.
The DOGE Admin seems to be confusing “indirect” costs with “unnecessary” costs - and they are not the same thing. A smart cost-cutting approach would look at both cost buckets for potential reductions. Though indirect frequently have more opportunities for cost cutting, they are not entirely expendable. As always, though DOGE’s ultimate purpose of reducing government spending may be worthwhile, this sledgehammer approach will absolutely hurt the country. They simply don’t care who they hurt.
You've hit the nail on the head Ashley. Either they themselves are actually confused by those terms, or they realize they can easily sway public opinion by making it seem so 'simple'.
What boggles my mind is the MAHA fear mongering about “Big Pharma” when clearly these actions will only further enrich big pharma. If you want more “independent research” you should also want robust public funding of research. (Assuming you do in fact care about the health and wellness of humanity.) MAHA influencers are either intentionally misleading people for their own power (and financial gain) or so woefully misinformed they shouldn’t be relied upon for information.
Great minds 🥸
Jen I LITERALLY just posted this exact question. Hahaha 😂
Or both, Jen. I remind people as often as possible that the “wellness” industry dwarfs the pharmaceutical industry in size, and it’s completely unregulated.
Exactly!!!
I was just going to say the same thing! We should be increasing public funding, not cutting it!
I don’t believe MAHA leaders are doing either.
Here is a great podcast with some of the leaders of MAHA
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000686173450
Btw- Honestly podcast (Bari Weiss) is ranked the same as Sharon’s podcast on Ad Fontes. (Middle biased and reliable)
Amy, bless your heart for hanging in here! It’s been less than a month, the cabinet members are still in process and yet there are so many experts here in the Preamble 💁🏼♀️. Where was all this outrage and questioning the past four years? I honestly cannot deal with being a subscriber any longer. This time it’s for good 😊
Same!! Not only are some of the commenters so negative- the content of the Preamble is focused on the target audience (left leaning and critics of the current administration) and isn’t non-partisan. I will keep reading some of the posts to expand my bubble. I have really been enjoying The Free Press and The Liberal Patriot substack for some diversity of thought.
Indirect costs also go to support PhD programs. They pay for PhD education, pay a stipend so that young researchers who work 90 hours a week in their labs don't need to get an additional job, and can eat.
The USA pays for the scientific training needed to do the "direct cost" research, and it is a very good investment.
There is a ripple effect to this, as well. I work for a software company that provides technology to nonprofits, hospitals, universities and k-12 schools. I work specifically with higher education. Customers who receive grants like these are in long term contracts with us and other tech providers and are concerned they can’t fulfill their obligations in the next few years. Of course we’ll find a way to work with them, but that means job cuts for their vendors, which of course leads to more economic strain. It’s a very unintelligent way of going about cutting spending, and to hear of elected officials cheering on the loss of jobs is really disheartening.
Jennifer, by unintelligent, do you mean stupid?
As in, “It’s a coup, stupid!”
Is all of this pain-inducing turmoil a coverup for the real power grab?
I’m trying hard to separate intention and impact. The intention of cutting government spending is - at face value - a needed one. We do spend money on trivial or outdated things. The impact of how we go about doing that is where elected officials are not being intelligent or strategic.
Yes, thank you, Jennifer. And they claim to be geniuses?
This decision, like so many others being made right now, is incredibly short-sighted. Thanks for the thorough explanation, Sharon.
Is the government meant to function like a business? Are they apples to apples? All of this rash cutting seems to have far more ripples & impacts than just a bottom line.
That’s the thing. The federal government should not be treated like a business. Right? Please tell me if I’m wrong!
This is the one that literally makes me cry, for a multitude of reasons. All of the actions of DOGE very much concern me, but this one hits close to home.
My son is in his first year of a fully funded PhD program studying BioChem. His future is bright as he is intelligent and curious and a hard worker-he can pivot and make his way whatever happens-but what these scientists are working on benefits all of us. The clinical trials that save people’s lives may one day save our own. The local economy of the university thrives when it can employ the citizens. The USA can recruit the best and the brightest to come and study here.
None of this is making us great or healthy or richer. It is doing the opposite, in fact.
Musk might be enamored of AI, but most research still needs to be done ex silico. That means that research needs labs, lights, and even bathrooms and people to clean them. Research hospitals and research universities are going to need to either shut down labs or charge patients and students to keep them going. Or replace the money with private funding. And, instead of that research being done as publicly funded, where taxpayers have some right to the data and intellectual property generated, it will be privately funded, where taxpayers have no right to the data and intellectual property. Furthermore, because private funding often requires a return on investment, much of that research will be directed to high value drug targets, not smaller treatments. This is not how you make America healthy again. It's how you put America behind in innovation while enriching pharmaceutical investors.
A dear friend has a rare disease. He raises money to fund the research, and volunteers for trials. He literally funds with his body and treasure. I contribute, and am also a “funder.” But we wouldn’t even have the option to do that if the University of Kansas wasn’t already there, and the researchers weren’t already trained. Thank you, NIH for building the labs and training the doctors. We can’t do it without you!
We are friends of a young man whose glioblastoma tumor has disappeared due to a clinical trial medication. Glioblastoma is considered incurable, yet here he is, feeling better each day. There are millions of people like him who benefit from research and to think of the number of lives that can be lost if this isn’t reversed, is heartbreaking. Yet DOGE has already paid themselves $7 million dollars within in 3 weeks. I can’t imagine that they are at all concerned about sending more funds to research, nor do I think they will bat an eye if lives are lost.
To the people who view this move as 'trimming the fat', I have to wonder if you truly understand how grants and research work at universities. My first job out of grad school was managing a 3-year, $600,000 federal suicide prevention grant at a mid-sized university. The indirect rate was probably around 25%. Different grants and programs are always coming into universities, and universities are often hard-pressed to find space on campus for these teams and individuals. Indirects help offset the costs of spacing, electricity, basic office equipment, etc. Universities typically have offices with staff that help faculty gather the extensive documentation required for grants and submit the required annual reports on grant progress. Indirects help cover these peoples' salaries and benefits, office space, etc. Indirects help cover the costs of the professional staff working on the Institutional Review Board overseeing research at universities to ensure that it is ethical and complies with all university, federal, etc. regulations. Indirects help support the cost of licensing fees for the software we used to survey our university community then process the data. Indirects helped support the admin staff who processed requests for travel to conferences where we could share findings from our project to help other universities reduce suicides on their campuses. It's especially disruptive if a rate has been agreed upon for a year or more in advance and is suddenly pulled with no advance warning. In the same way that you and I budget for our families knowing how much we expect to earn in a year, universities are doing the same. It is unreasonable to expect them to face sudden budget reductions (in many cases, in the millions of dollars) in the middle of agreed upon work periods. I am still in a higher education as a full-time faculty member (thankfully not involved in research), but I am at an R1 (highest research activity institution) in Texas. We are very concerned about the impact this will have to our faculty, institution and ultimately to our students.
To answer your initial question, No, they don't understand how grants and research work. Our elected officials are supposed to listen to their constituents on such matters. It's impossible for them to be experts on everything that impacts their constituents. And unless they have personal experience OR if constituents bring their concerns to them, they are just following marching orders from lobbyists or their party. This is backwards in how our congress and government is supposed to represent us.
With that said, those who have experience in grants and university research need to be reaching out to their elected officials to educate them on the consequences of this type of behavior! Even if we don't think they will listen, now they have the information. The ball is in their court. What they do with it is what informs us as to how we will vote and how we will inform others to vote when they are up for reelection.
UAB - University of Alabama at Birmingham would be absolutely devastated by these cuts. Tuberville does not care, nor will he ever actually care about the state that he serves, because he doesn't even live here. He also has zero clue what he's talking about. The fact that he refers to himself as "Coach" on his senatorial contact site says everything.
What qualifications does Musk and his team even have to make these decisions? Cutting government spending can be done legally and thoughtfully without upending millions of lives around the world at once. This process is being done without empathy and I imagine without context of what the actual spending is for.