Indirect cost recovery (ICR) is crucial for funding at public research universities, yet misinformation has led to misconceptions about its importance. Recently, NIH acting director Matthew J. Memoli proposed capping ICR at 15% of direct costs, disregarding existing negotiated rates, posing significant challenges for universities. This change is justified by claims that indirect costs undermine direct funding and are hard to oversee. However, this narrative promotes a false dichotomy, risking further budget shortfalls and hindering research essential for public benefits. A counter-narrative is essential for mobilizing opposition to maintain funding integrity.
Memoli's cap on indirect cost recovery is presented as a solution to perceived inefficiencies, yet it risks undermining essential funding for university research.
The NIH's new policy proposal, capping indirect costs at 15%, is based on a narrative that overlooks the fundamental need for adequate funding in research.
Collection
[
|
...
]