I have been running labs for decades. I have a pretty good idea how they work. Of course all funds are fungible so I cannot prove that my particular overhead went to a particular thing -- I am sure that is deliberate. All I know is that they go into central administration (sounds like that is where you live) and they pay for whatever app…
I have been running labs for decades. I have a pretty good idea how they work. Of course all funds are fungible so I cannot prove that my particular overhead went to a particular thing -- I am sure that is deliberate. All I know is that they go into central administration (sounds like that is where you live) and they pay for whatever appeals to them (among which is DEI). The administrative sinkhole (the admin staff at my school is now 5x larger than when I started -- the faculty is about the same as are the student counts) contribute little of value in most of our opinions. I am sure those who are there think they are doing a wonderful job, but not one of them would be missed if they all disappeared by those of us who actually see patients and do the research.
I don't live in central - I never have. I've only worked in departments and research centers directly with PIs. I assure you couldn't do high quality research without research administrators. At this point I've worked with hundreds of faculty internally and externally and a few things: 1.) none of you actually understand how indirects work, you all think you do, but its a multiplier that many seem to not be able to apply correctly to your budgets at the bare minimum, and you certainly have no idea what happens on the backend, or how they are calculated or negotiated 2.) you have no idea how much invisible work gets done on your behalf, and 3.) I DO think that central offices are not transparent (to their detriment) about how these funds are spent, AND they also hoard way too much of the recovery and do not share with the generating department - which is BS.
So congrats! You run a lab and provide direct patient care - that's great, but it doesn't make you an expert on indirects.
Is it possible you are running a lab funded by NSF? Or are doing physics or engineering? I recently learned that not all disciplines structure direct and indirect costs the same way. For example in physics and engineering rent, utilities etc are billed as direct costs. But for the NIH they are indirect. This is why NIH indirect costs seem so high - they pay for everything except salaries of the people named in the grant application and the materials listed. If you are an NIH funded researcher, then rent, utilities, insurance, IT, HR, HR legal, patent legal, security, janitorial, EH&S, BSL-3, facilities, shipping and receiving, equipment contracts, etc are all indirect costs. Further, they not fungible nor unaccountable. All institutions must report their indirect costs with receipts to the NIH. These accounts are routinely audited. Everyone on this thread including Vinay (except Sarah) seems to think indirect costs= administrative overhead. It does not. Administrative overhead (the part everyone says is bloated) is only a fraction of indirect costs. In the private sector, 15% for administrative overhead is fairly typical. If that were all that was at stake then yes this proposal would be reasonable. Instead this proposal cuts off the electricity, water, rent, security etc. Yes we have grants in hand with the funded direct costs. And there will be no means to implement them.
I have been running labs for decades. I have a pretty good idea how they work. Of course all funds are fungible so I cannot prove that my particular overhead went to a particular thing -- I am sure that is deliberate. All I know is that they go into central administration (sounds like that is where you live) and they pay for whatever appeals to them (among which is DEI). The administrative sinkhole (the admin staff at my school is now 5x larger than when I started -- the faculty is about the same as are the student counts) contribute little of value in most of our opinions. I am sure those who are there think they are doing a wonderful job, but not one of them would be missed if they all disappeared by those of us who actually see patients and do the research.
I don't live in central - I never have. I've only worked in departments and research centers directly with PIs. I assure you couldn't do high quality research without research administrators. At this point I've worked with hundreds of faculty internally and externally and a few things: 1.) none of you actually understand how indirects work, you all think you do, but its a multiplier that many seem to not be able to apply correctly to your budgets at the bare minimum, and you certainly have no idea what happens on the backend, or how they are calculated or negotiated 2.) you have no idea how much invisible work gets done on your behalf, and 3.) I DO think that central offices are not transparent (to their detriment) about how these funds are spent, AND they also hoard way too much of the recovery and do not share with the generating department - which is BS.
So congrats! You run a lab and provide direct patient care - that's great, but it doesn't make you an expert on indirects.
Is it possible you are running a lab funded by NSF? Or are doing physics or engineering? I recently learned that not all disciplines structure direct and indirect costs the same way. For example in physics and engineering rent, utilities etc are billed as direct costs. But for the NIH they are indirect. This is why NIH indirect costs seem so high - they pay for everything except salaries of the people named in the grant application and the materials listed. If you are an NIH funded researcher, then rent, utilities, insurance, IT, HR, HR legal, patent legal, security, janitorial, EH&S, BSL-3, facilities, shipping and receiving, equipment contracts, etc are all indirect costs. Further, they not fungible nor unaccountable. All institutions must report their indirect costs with receipts to the NIH. These accounts are routinely audited. Everyone on this thread including Vinay (except Sarah) seems to think indirect costs= administrative overhead. It does not. Administrative overhead (the part everyone says is bloated) is only a fraction of indirect costs. In the private sector, 15% for administrative overhead is fairly typical. If that were all that was at stake then yes this proposal would be reasonable. Instead this proposal cuts off the electricity, water, rent, security etc. Yes we have grants in hand with the funded direct costs. And there will be no means to implement them.