FILE PHOTO: In this Nov. 26, 2014 file photo, a brain-scanning MRI machine at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
Keith Srakocic / AP Photo
Pittsburgh research institutions sue to block funding cuts from the National Science Foundation
-
Kiley Koscinski/WESA
Keith Srakocic / AP Photo
FILE PHOTO: In this Nov. 26, 2014 file photo, a brain-scanning MRI machine at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) — one of the world’s largest supporters of basic research — is scaling down its support of overhead funds for science research. A policy implemented Monday lowers the funding cap for so-called “indirect costs” at 15%. The agency also appears to have frozen grant awards overall, directing staff to “stop awarding all funding actions until further notice,” according to the science journal Nature.
Late Monday, a group of universities — including Carnegie Mellon University — filed a lawsuit against the NSF to block the new funding cap from taking effect. Previous cuts by the Trump administration to research spending have been frozen by the courts.
“We are seeking to prevent implementation of this poorly conceived and short-sighted policy, which will only hurt the American people and weaken the country,” the Association of American Universities said in a statement announcing the challenge.
“Besides its destructive impact on research and training, this latest effort violates longstanding federal laws and regulations that govern grantmaking,” the AAU added. “We look forward to making our case.”
The NSF is the third federal agency to lower the cap on ancillary research funding, which covers expenses like lab and equipment maintenance as well as support staff and administrative costs associated with research endeavors. Those expenditures are typically excluded by the perimeters of a research grant, and the funds are awarded in addition to the grant itself. The NSF policy aligns with similar funding cut attempts made by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.
“This change is intended to streamline funding practices, increase transparency, and ensure that more resources are directed toward direct scientific and engineering research activities,” the NSF said in a statement.
The NSF did not estimate how much the agency would save by lowering the funding cap. When the NIH attempted a similar measure in February, officials said it would save the agency $4 billion annually. The NIH’s budget is five times larger than the NSF.
The University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University could face significant funding shortfalls under the new policy. Previously, research universities negotiated their own indirect cost rates, with an average rate of 27%. Pitt’s rate is far higher than the national average at 59%. CMU’s rate is 52%.
The new funding cap comes on the heels of the NSF canceling grants across the country. The University of Pittsburgh saw five of its NSF grants canceled last month, totaling $1.7 million. The funds were earmarked for countering misinformation and public distrust in science, encouraging students to pursue careers in science and assessing the value of artificial intelligence programs for middle schoolers.
Pitt declined to comment on the new NSF indirect cost cap Monday, but in an email to the university community Sunday, the university said it was still working to understand the overall financial consequences of the policy.
“We are engaging closely with universities across the country and with our national representative associations, such as [Association of American Universities] AAU and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), to understand the details of the cap and the availability of legal challenges,” Pitt said.
The message was signed by provost Joe McCarthy, senior vice chancellor for administration and finance Dwayne Pinkney, senior vice chancellor for research Rob Rutenbar, and senior vice chancellor for the health sciences Anantha Shekhar.
“We recognize the significant impact this guidance could potentially have for the many people involved directly and indirectly,” leaders wrote.
The funding cap does not apply to any previous awards, meaning that grants awarded before May 5 would not be affected. Continuous grants, or those that are awarded over the course of several fiscal years, would also be excluded from the new NSF rate. But all grants awarded after May 5 would be subject to the new cap.
“Ultimately, the full impact of this change in the short and long term remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that our collective scholarly impact could be harmed irreparably, as could our broader mission,” Pitt leaders said.
CMU said in a message to the university community late Monday that the rate change would be “crippling [to] some of our nation’s greatest and surest engines of innovation and economic prosperity.”
In the message, CMU president Farnam Jahanian said he does not take suing the federal government lightly, remarking on the “overwhelmingly positive partnership with the federal government and its many federal agencies for 80 years.”
“Our decision to challenge the federal government more than once in several months is the product of much thoughtful consideration and discussion,” Jahanian said.
The university is a named plaintiff in another lawsuit that seeks to block a similar funding cap at the National Institutes of Health.
Also part of that lawsuit is the Association of American Universities, an organization that represents schools like CMU and Pitt. AAU president Barbara Snyder issued a statement about the NSF funding cap, arguing it would harm scientific advancement as well as the careers of early scientists studying at research universities.
“A cut to the [indirect costs] reimbursement rate for NSF grants and cooperative agreements will mean, quite simply, fewer scientific innovations and breakthroughs for the American people – and all Americans will lose as a result,” Snyder said.
Snyder argued that the Trump administration should instead be increasing its investment in agencies like the NSF to keep the U.S. at the forefront of innovation. She called the lower funding cap a “gift to competitors and potential adversaries such as China.”
“Knee-capping this agency by drastically cutting its support for essential research costs is an avoidable blunder if our nation wants to win the technology wars,” Snyder said. “It is absolutely crucial to maintain and expand NSF’s capabilities right now, as we face increased threats to U.S. scientific superiority.”
Fears about budding scientists fleeing the U.S. for China and elsewhere were raised by Pitt researchers during a lab visit with Pennsylvania state lawmakers last week.
With several federal agencies seeking to reduce research spending, a group of universities — including Pitt — have launched an effort to set a new model for indirect cost funding.
An AAU statement last month acknowledged that the current model for indirect costs funding “is not without limitations that unnecessarily complicate the indirect costs structure, lead to confusion and misunderstanding, and increase administrative burdens.”
The organization has convened a group of research institutions to develop a new nationwide model for funding indirect costs on federal research grants. Pitt leaders shared last week that the university is working alongside the group to submit a new indirect costs funding model to the Trump administration.
“The new model will be shared with the federal government as a potential mechanism to fund these important infrastructure costs,” Pitt said.
A collection of interviews, photos, and music videos, featuring local musicians who have stopped by the WITF performance studio to share a little discussion and sound. Produced by WITF’s Joe Ulrich.
