Giving the NIH an indirect haircut

Indirect costs have been an easy target for those who argue the NIH needs a substantial budget trim. These dollars, which go to universities to help support overhead — keeping lights on, lab fridges running — account for about a third of the funding doled out in NIH grants. Opponents say those dollars would be better spent on actual research, whereas proponents say that grants covering indirect costs are vital to an institution’s ability to conduct research.

Brian J. Miller, an internal medicine resident at Georgetown and former CDER drug reviewer, opines for STAT that capping these indirect costs could help the NIH become more agile and inventive.