Emily Badger, Aatish Bhatia, Irineo Cabreros, Eli Murray, Francesca Paris, Margot Sanger-Katz and
A proposal by the Trump administration to reduce the size of grants for institutions conducting medical research would have far-reaching effects, and not just for elite universities and the coastal states where many are located.
Also at risk could be grants from the National Institutes of Health to numerous hospitals that conduct clinical research on major diseases, and to state universities across the country. North Carolina, Missouri and Pennsylvania could face disproportionate losses, because of the concentration of medical research in those states.
In the 2024 fiscal year, the N.I.H. spent at least $32 billion on nearly 60,000 grants, including medical research in areas like cancer, genetics and infectious disease. Of that, $23 billion went to “direct” research costs, such as microscopes and researchers’ salaries, according to an Upshot analysis of N.I.H. grant data.
The other $9 billion went to the institutions’ overhead, or “indirect costs,” which can include laboratory upkeep, utility bills, administrative staff and access to hazardous materials disposal, all of which research institutions say is essential to making research possible.
The N.I.H. proposal, which has been put on hold by a federal court, aims to reduce funding for those indirect costs to a set 15 percent rate that the administration says would save about $4 billion a year. The Upshot analysis estimates that a 15 percent rate would have reduced funding for the grants that received N.I.H. support in 2024 by at least $5 billion. The White House said the savings would be reinvested in more research, but the rate cuts would open up sizable budget holes in most projects at research institutions.
The post by NewYorkTimes.com appears on South Florida Reporter.