NIH cuts billions of dollars in biomedical funding, effective immediately

[HROT]

If the goal here is to get federal spending under control, the measurement can't be "is this a good thing?",... rather, it has to be more along the lines of "is this a necessary thing?"...

Tax cuts. Go.

Weird your standard doesn’t apply to literally anything Trump

 

[franklinman]

The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars in biomedical research funding, alarming academic leaders who said it would imperil their universities and medical centers and drawing swift rebukes from Democrats who predicted dire consequences for scientific research.

The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts the NIH’s funding for “indirect” costs related to research. These are the administrative requirements, facilities and other operations that many scientists say are essential but some Republicans have argued are superfluous.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”


In a post on social media, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. The note singled out Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University’s multibillion-dollar endowments, implying that many universities do not need the added federal funding.

The policy, essentially a massive budget cut to science and medical centers across the country, was quickly denounced as devastating by universities and research organizations.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
Some scientists said the move could threaten research already underway and noted that their universities have a fraction of the endowments of schools such as Harvard and Yale. Industry leaders also questioned whether the move was legal.

“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” Matt Owens, president of COGR, Council on Government Relations, an association of research institutions, academic medical centers and research institutes, wrote in an email.

The funding is “part and parcel of the total costs of conducting world class research,” Owens added. “We are carefully reviewing this policy change as it contradicts current law and policy. America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound.”
Trump allies hailed the NIH’s move. The U.S. DOGE Service, the agency led by billionaire Elon Musk that has focused on slashing government spending, said NIH’s new policy would save billions of dollars in “excessive grant administrative costs.”

“Amazing job by NIH team,” DOGE posted on social media.
Republicans in recent years had weighed cutting federal funds for overhead costs at universities, with the first Trump administration abandoning a plan to do so amid pressure from biomedical leaders.
Democrats immediately castigated the Trump administration, saying the NIH’s move would imperil clinical research, patient care and laboratory operations, among other health care priorities.

“Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) said in a statement.
The NIH’s policy shift centers on how it awards grants to support scientific research on cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It also provides overhead funds to cover the costs of facilities, administration and other approved costs. That amount is a percentage of the original grant and varies by institutions but can represent more than half the grant.

In fiscal year 2023, out of $35 billion in awarded grants, $9 billion went to overhead, NIH said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/02/08/nih-cuts-billions-dollars-biomedical-funding-effective-immediately/

200 MILLION in Penna alone, Penn state and UPMC. They have enough to go another 2 weeks and then everything is shut down.

 

[Hawki97]

If the goal here is to get federal spending under control, the measurement can't be "is this a good thing?",... rather, it has to be more along the lines of "is this a necessary thing?"...

When you or your family/friend gets some disease, condition, etc. that research was halted or slowed I bet I'll know your tune.

And it won't be: "Sorry son, I know you're dying or have a life altering condition - but don't worry, we owned the libs in 2025. It's worth it." Actually....who knows, maybe it is worth it for you bois!

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

You’re not a billionaire?

FWIW, the tax rates didn't change under sleepy joe. But try to explain that to those people.

 

[95Hawk]

If the goal here is to get federal spending under control, the measurement can't be "is this a good thing?",... rather, it has to be more along the lines of "is this a necessary thing?"...

I’d like to cast a vote that research into potential cures and remedies for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases is necessary.

But you keep doing you and providing moronic takes.

 

[stanzithemanzi12]

The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars in biomedical research funding, alarming academic leaders who said it would imperil their universities and medical centers and drawing swift rebukes from Democrats who predicted dire consequences for scientific research.

The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts the NIH’s funding for “indirect” costs related to research. These are the administrative requirements, facilities and other operations that many scientists say are essential but some Republicans have argued are superfluous.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”


In a post on social media, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. The note singled out Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University’s multibillion-dollar endowments, implying that many universities do not need the added federal funding.

The policy, essentially a massive budget cut to science and medical centers across the country, was quickly denounced as devastating by universities and research organizations.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
Some scientists said the move could threaten research already underway and noted that their universities have a fraction of the endowments of schools such as Harvard and Yale. Industry leaders also questioned whether the move was legal.

“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” Matt Owens, president of COGR, Council on Government Relations, an association of research institutions, academic medical centers and research institutes, wrote in an email.

The funding is “part and parcel of the total costs of conducting world class research,” Owens added. “We are carefully reviewing this policy change as it contradicts current law and policy. America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound.”
Trump allies hailed the NIH’s move. The U.S. DOGE Service, the agency led by billionaire Elon Musk that has focused on slashing government spending, said NIH’s new policy would save billions of dollars in “excessive grant administrative costs.”

“Amazing job by NIH team,” DOGE posted on social media.
Republicans in recent years had weighed cutting federal funds for overhead costs at universities, with the first Trump administration abandoning a plan to do so amid pressure from biomedical leaders.
Democrats immediately castigated the Trump administration, saying the NIH’s move would imperil clinical research, patient care and laboratory operations, among other health care priorities.

“Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) said in a statement.
The NIH’s policy shift centers on how it awards grants to support scientific research on cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It also provides overhead funds to cover the costs of facilities, administration and other approved costs. That amount is a percentage of the original grant and varies by institutions but can represent more than half the grant.

In fiscal year 2023, out of $35 billion in awarded grants, $9 billion went to overhead, NIH said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/02/08/nih-cuts-billions-dollars-biomedical-funding-effective-immediately/

Wonderful. It's time for competition for these funds to get more competitive and capitalistic.

 

[Hawki97]

Wonderful. It's time for competition for these funds to get more competitive and capitalistic.

What will be wonderful is the schadenfreude when you or someone you care about is dying because research halted on their condition because you wanted to "OwN Da lIBz in 2025!" Come back and give us a play by play of your sorrow and grief. I mean that. I want to hear every word of it.

 

[Rifler]

When you or your family/friend gets some disease, condition, etc. that research was halted or slowed I bet I'll know your tune.

And it won't be: "Sorry son, I know you're dying or have a life altering condition - but don't worry, we owned the libs in 2025. It's worth it." Actually....who knows, maybe it is worth it for you bois!

People die every day and will continue to do so, albeit from a shorter list of ailments that what we used to accept as the norm,.. We're in pretty good shape with the current medical technology,.. I think the species will survive.

 

[Hawki97]

People die every day and will continue to do so, albeit from a shorter list of ailments that what we used to accept as the norm,.. We're in pretty good shape with the current medical technology,.. I think the species will survive.

Holy phuck. Did you actually type this on purpose?

I'm as callous as you when it comes to people dying. You, the guy I see out scooping his wal right now...don't give 2 shits if your bodies are cold tomorrow. But to just throw your hands up and say "we're good" and halt innovation, curiosity, research, etc. (on many things not just medical) is about as anti-human as it gets IMO. Productive humans anyway. You do you I guess.

 

[stanzithemanzi12]

What will be wonderful is the schadenfreude when you or someone you care about is dying because research halted on their condition because you wanted to "OwN Da lIBz in 2025!" Come back and give us a play by play of your sorrow and grief. I mean that. I want to hear every word of it.

Increased competition will lead to faster and better research.

 

[jneffer]

Increased competition will lead to faster and better research.

organizations "compete" for the grant money now

you're saying we should ceding even more responsibility and authority in our medical community to big pharmaceutical companies?

or do you think there are some magical mom and pop medical researchers out there?

 

[bcherod]

The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars in biomedical research funding, alarming academic leaders who said it would imperil their universities and medical centers and drawing swift rebukes from Democrats who predicted dire consequences for scientific research.

The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts the NIH’s funding for “indirect” costs related to research. These are the administrative requirements, facilities and other operations that many scientists say are essential but some Republicans have argued are superfluous.

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”


In a post on social media, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. The note singled out Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University’s multibillion-dollar endowments, implying that many universities do not need the added federal funding.

The policy, essentially a massive budget cut to science and medical centers across the country, was quickly denounced as devastating by universities and research organizations.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
Some scientists said the move could threaten research already underway and noted that their universities have a fraction of the endowments of schools such as Harvard and Yale. Industry leaders also questioned whether the move was legal.

“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” Matt Owens, president of COGR, Council on Government Relations, an association of research institutions, academic medical centers and research institutes, wrote in an email.

The funding is “part and parcel of the total costs of conducting world class research,” Owens added. “We are carefully reviewing this policy change as it contradicts current law and policy. America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound.”
Trump allies hailed the NIH’s move. The U.S. DOGE Service, the agency led by billionaire Elon Musk that has focused on slashing government spending, said NIH’s new policy would save billions of dollars in “excessive grant administrative costs.”

“Amazing job by NIH team,” DOGE posted on social media.
Republicans in recent years had weighed cutting federal funds for overhead costs at universities, with the first Trump administration abandoning a plan to do so amid pressure from biomedical leaders.
Democrats immediately castigated the Trump administration, saying the NIH’s move would imperil clinical research, patient care and laboratory operations, among other health care priorities.

“Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) said in a statement.
The NIH’s policy shift centers on how it awards grants to support scientific research on cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It also provides overhead funds to cover the costs of facilities, administration and other approved costs. That amount is a percentage of the original grant and varies by institutions but can represent more than half the grant.

In fiscal year 2023, out of $35 billion in awarded grants, $9 billion went to overhead, NIH said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/02/08/nih-cuts-billions-dollars-biomedical-funding-effective-immediately/

In Florida this affects UF, USF, and UCF. They are the ones that this affects the most, particularly Shane’s at UF.

One of my great nieces in grad school will probably make a decision about going to med school now.

 

[Hawki97]

Increased competition will lead to faster and better research.

Holy phuck. Competition? How many NIH grants have you applied for? Do you have the slightest sense for how difficult it is to secure....

Actually, forget it. You're so far out of your depth the Mariana Trench seems closer.

But seriously, please come back when you or someone you love has a terminal illness that research was impacted. I want to hear every word through your tears. I love how human suffering looks on a certain breed of human.

 

[Tiny Hands Trump]

Holy phuck. Competition? How many NIH grants have you applied for? Do you have the slightest sense for how difficult it is to secure....

Actually, forget it. You're so far out of your depth the Mariana Trench seems closer.

But seriously, please come back when you or someone you love has a terminal illness that research was impacted. I want to hear every word through your tears. I love how human suffering looks on a certain breed of human.

Really they should decline any treatment that was derived from NIH grants. That money was obviously a waste or fraud, just like the money now. The human species will survive afterall.

 

[Rifler]

Holy phuck. Did you actually type this on purpose?

I'm as callous as you when it comes to people dying. You, the guy I see out scooping his wal right now...don't give 2 shits if your bodies are cold tomorrow. But to just throw your hands up and say "we're good" and halt innovation, curiosity, research, etc. (on many things not just medical) is about as anti-human as it gets IMO. Productive humans anyway. You do you I guess.

Not saying that these levels of research are bad,.. Merely indicating that they're very likely going to become temporarily unaffordable...

 

[Hawki97]

Not saying that these levels of research are bad,.. Merely indicating that they're very likely going to become temporarily unaffordable...

Ok bud.

 

[stanzithemanzi12]

Holy phuck. Competition? How many NIH grants have you applied for? Do you have the slightest sense for how difficult it is to secure....

Actually, forget it. You're so far out of your depth the Mariana Trench seems closer.

But seriously, please come back when you or someone you love has a terminal illness that research was impacted. I want to hear every word through your tears. I love how human suffering looks on a certain breed of human.

Meh, I'd say we have the best health care in the world here in the United States. We're already spoiled. There would be no tears. Life's not fair.

 

[Hawki97]

Meh, I'd say we have the best health care in the world here in the United States. We're already spoiled. There would be no tears. Life's not fair.

Sure bud. There will come a day when all you boi’s tough talk, owning the libz, and the extra $50 you think you saved on your taxes will seem meaningless. My only disappointment in that is I won’t be able to see your suffering.

 

[stanzithemanzi12]

Sure bud. There will come a day when all you boi’s tough talk, owning the libz, and the extra $50 you think you saved on your taxes will seem meaningless. My only disappointment in that is I won’t be able to see your suffering.

Considering I pay around $100k a year in taxes, I think I'll be just fine.

 

[Hawki97]

Considering I pay around $100k a year in taxes, I think I'll be just fine.

That's all? Must be nice.