National Health Institutes plan to cut billions of dollars to medical investigators, A measure that scientists warn that they could endanger their work in the progress of the priests for diseases.
The agency, the largest source of financing of the world’s biomedical research, announced Friday night that it would reduce the “maximum indirect costs” that research institutions can charge the government. The change will mean savings of more than US $ 4,000 million a year.
In a publication on the social media platform X, The NIH said that its $ 9,000 million in money granted for investigation last year “were used for general administrative expenses.”
Scientists claim that it is essential that these indirect costs be reimbursed (which are not directly attributable to specific research projects or functions). Expenditure is used for items such as patient safety, research safety and dangerous waste, according to Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public Universities and Land Concessionaires.
Becker said the cuts will prevent medical advances.
“The reimbursement of research costs by NIF will stop and limit medical advances that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” Becker said in a statement. “That nobody is wrong: it is a direct and mass cut to medical research that saves lives.”
White House spokesman Kush Desai described those “hysteria” statements and added: “Redirecting billions of dollars of expenses assigned to NIH so that they are not used in administrative excesses means that there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, no less.”
The Trump administration has been working quickly to reduce costs throughout the federal government. The fears of mass dismissals have extended to health agencies as the Elon Musk government efficiency department examines federal expenditure under the magnifying glass, or apparently introduces it into artificial intelligence software.
Indirect cost refunds have been criticized in the past. A 2016 report from the United States Government Responsibility Office demanded more controls on indirect cost rates, stating that there was a risk of “waste federal resources.”
