A federal judge on Wednesday said the Trump administration was dramatically blocked Cutting down medical research funds Many scientists say it puts patients at risk and costs employment.
The new National Institute of Health strips its hundreds of millions of dollars of research groups to cover the so-called indirect costs of studying Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, heart disease and many other diseases.
Separate lawsuits filed by groups from 22 states and organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions across the country “causing irreparable harm” and advocated that the cuts would be stopped.
Boston US District Judge Angel Kelly had I temporarily blocked the cut last month. On Wednesday, she filed a preliminary injunction pending cuts longer while the lawsuit progressed.
The NIH, the leading funder of biomedical research, awarded the research group a grant of approximately $35 billion last year. The total is divided into “direct” and “indirect” costs covering researcher salaries and laboratory supplies, as well as the management and facility costs required to support the work.
The Trump administration has dismissed these costs as “overhead,” but universities and hospitals argue that they are far more important. It can include things like electricity for operating sophisticated machines, hazardous waste disposal, and staff to ensure that researchers follow safety regulations.
Under previous policies, the government negotiated these fees with the institutions. As an example, an institution with a 50% indirect cost rate will earn an additional $50,000 to cover the indirect costs of a $100,000 project. NIH’s new policy is calculated instead to limit indirect costs at a flat rate of 15% and save agents $4 billion a year.
The present and former health Officials previously told CBS News that they were shocked by the change, stressing that federal authorities had already carefully scrutinized and negotiated whether the funds would already be funded.
“We’re fighting like hell trying to keep rates down,” said a former federal health official who worked with the team responsible for auditing indirect costs on behalf of the NIH.
Negotiations regarding requests to cover these costs are often controversial, including inspections of facilities and interrogation of researchers working from the building with the aim of “punching holes” in their submissions.
“We don’t hand out farms, so anyone who says they’ve never been out on a site visit with us,” the former staff member said.
One of the plaintiffs, Dr. David J. Scourton of the American Association of Medical Colleges, praised the verdict. “These illegal cuts will slow healthcare progress and sacrifice lives,” he wrote in a statement, saying the NIH-funded research “will benefit all people and communities in America.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
