 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Truth in Publishing: Blurbs and Acknowledgments, Continued | Comment [1]
Truth in Publishing: Curb Those Blurbs and Syrupy Acknowledgments | Comment [5]
Colleges Are Protected From Failure | Comment [17]
Ripe for the Gripe | Comment [12]
'Rebranding' Engineering | Comment [14]
Featured Articles By the Author
Science and the Tin Cup: Some Further Discussion
My April 14 post, “Science Rattles the Tin Cup in Washington,” argued that wealthy universities should spend more of their own money on academic research in these hard times; that industry, too, should increase its academic spending. The post also noted that claims of inadequate reimbursement of indirect costs in universities have evoked some skepticism.
A mixed bag of comments ensued. Particularly strong disagreement was expressed by officers of two major academic outposts in Washington: Anthony DeCrappeo, president of the Council on Government Relations, which focuses on federal financial and administrative regulations for research universities, and David Korn, chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges, the medical school lobby.
Posted by me on Brainstorm April 24 (“Science Rattles the Tin Cup Draws More Fire”), their response argued that universities already spend significant sums on research, and that my reckoning of indirect costs was cockeyed. They agreed, however, more money for academic research from industry is a good idea.
The fact is that many universities, including some of the wealthiest, spend relatively minor amounts of their own money on research, preferring to rely on the hard-pressed U.S. Treasury, while mourning the decline of American science. Harvard, with $35-billion in its endowment, Yale with over $20-billion, and the dozen others with over $5-billion could provide some relief for the stretched budgets of NIH and other federal agencies. Of the $46-billion spent on academic research in 2006, $9-billion was provided by universities themselves. Not all universities could increase their contribution, but the wealthy could easily do so. Some endowment is indeed restricted, but substantial amounts are not.
Indirect-cost accounting is an arcane subject over which bitter arguments have raged for decades. In 1982, when James B. Wyngaarden, chair of the department of medicine at Duke University, became director of NIH, he expressed concern about the share of the budget going into indirect costs and wanted to reduce the payments and redirect the money into research. The medical school lobby declared war — and Wyngaarden retreated. The same thing happened in 1993 when the Clinton administration took office and questioned the big slice of research money spent on indirect costs. These costs, arising from sponsored research, are real, but anyone who doubts there’s skepticism about current levels of payment should note that Congress recently set a ceiling of 35 percent on research sponsored by the Defense Department.
Congress, reflecting public disenchantment with university tuition regularly rising above the rate of inflation, is showing long-overdue curiosity toward the colossal endowments accumulating in some universities. While foundations are required to spend 5 percent of their holdings annually, universities are free of any spending requirement — and few spend as much as 5 percent. Congressional grumbling about rising tuition and skimpy spending from mounting endowments recently helped propel many elite universities to increase financial aid for needy students — though the need for assistance was plainly evident all the time.
The encouraging message is that university management is educable, though often only under duress.
Posted at 02:00:56 PM on April 30, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: As Usual, Few Women Elected to NAS
Next: Scientists on the Sidelines
One word: Bravissimo!
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Apr 30, 03:00 PM · #
By forcing schools to cut their payments for overhead, only a few rich schools, and there are only a FEW rich schools, will get all the grants and the other schools will decline. Typical unintended consequences from some writer who does not see past the immediate problem.
— Frank · Apr 30, 03:13 PM · #
Ah, but it is not actual indirect costs that are disputed but the inflation of indirect costs, as the Pentagon’s new 35% cap so clearly attests.
Those who have been principal investigators on a major Federal grant know exactly what this is all about. The real “inside story” of the manipulation of grant and contract offices in universities is darker than anyone will publicly admit – after all, we’re basically talking fraud and possible jail time here, “qui tam” suits, etc.
— Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Apr 30, 03:28 PM · #