Congress has the power of the purse, and isn't zealously protecting it as it should.
What happens if there's a federal tax protest among citizens of the Blue States and the purse shrinks? This country was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation", and as the Executive branch ignores the laws duly passed by our representatives, we're back to the Boston Harbor once more.
I will also say that you're doing Eisenhower a GREAT disservice by suggesting that he'd approve of or have any part in Trump's wanton destruction of the foundations of American scientific research. The National Institute of Health predates Ike's presidency by about 80 years, the National Science Foundation was established during the Truman administration and was awarding grants during Ike's tenure, and (D)ARPA was established during his presidency.
And to defend the DEI*A* initiatives - at least in the healthcare space - a good part of those resources were dedicated to recruiting, training, and supporting researchers from a variety of DIVERSE backgrounds, because the status quo simply wasn't cutting it. We NEED researchers from diverse backgrounds, because they have connections to and credibility with communities that are under-represented in scientific and medical study participant pools, especially when those communities don't have a lot of incentive to participate in studies, given the shameful treatment those communities have endured in the past, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study[1], which wasn't terminated until 1972.
A large part of the work I do as part of my day job[2] is working with researchers to find ways to reach those often ignored and under-served communities using technologies like apps, WhatsApp, and SMS to try and help folks that were ignored or overlooked prior to attempting to build a scientific corps that is representative of our nation at large. I'm not going to argue that some institutions didn't go overboard with it (I never included pronouns in my e-mails), but the sheer ignorance of your golem is going to burn the folks cheering it on far more than pronouns or Robin diAngelo seminars ever did.[3]
There's a GOOD argument for a overhauled system of compensating research institutions (my clients) indirect rates - some more transparency would always be better - but this is Congress's job to do - not Elon Musk's and his crew of Skibidi Boyz. It's also worth noting that those institutions don't dictate their indirect rates, but those are negotiated regularly with the federal gov't in the interest of making sure those funds are being appropriately spent[4]. If the current regime wants to axe DEI, you do that by making DEI-related expenditures exempt from the institution's negotiated indirect rate (and axe any DEI-requirements, such as diversity statements to accompany grant proposals). You don't stop paying people while you send your Dunning-Kruger crew in to figure things out AFTER you've interrupted valuable, but expensive studies.
As far as there being "nothing we can do", we can not pay our federal taxes until the laws are being enforced and implemented as written. As a Blue Stater myself, I'm looking forward to a consortium of like-minded polities banding together to prevent a brain drain elsewhere, and funding research among themselves. Katie Britt and Alabama can reap what they've sown for all I care. The 22 states suing the Trump administration might be a good place to start building that research coalition[5].
No misunderstanding here: Ike would NEVER approve of Trump. He is the antithesis of everything Ike believed in: stability, intelligence, cooperation. However, Ike warned what happens when we abandon balance for partisan edge service. We rode into a cul de sac. Ike’s warning summoned a Trump in a very real way while warning what happens when a Trump Golem shows up.
Crap. I never heard of indirect rates, so I looked up. It means that a government contractor can charge whatever they bill. It costs what it costs. Contract provisions can be waived by officials who might or might not be on the take. Claims can be audited which adds to the cost and audits are driven by procedures - not knowledge. The concept can be corrupted in the interest of expediency. Did Congress create the concept of indirect rates or was it the bureaucrats to whom Congress and a President presented an idea disguised as a law.
Indirect rates (or overhead) is what is paid to support the auxiliary infrastructure used to support research. With one of my biggest clients, IT infrastructure that hosts the data sets we're collecting, the servers that run the software, and the staff that keeps that available and backed up is paid for out of indirects.
Other institutions can and do things differently, which is why these rates are not dictated by the grant recipient, but negotiated between the granter and grantee on a per-institution basis.
I looked at enough to know government contracts that include indirect costs are what project managers in private industries call "cost-plus" contracts. We avoided those types of contracts except in extraordinary circumstances such as meeting regulatory or court ordered schedules. They were impossible to budget for and audit reliably. I also discovered they seemed to be the most important subject in grant writer training.
There are cost-plus contracts in the gov't as well. (Boeing is infamous for being unable to make a profit outside of cost-plus contracts.) But this isn't how it works with research groups I work with. The amount granted tends to stay fixed, and there's even a process where the requested amount is expected to get slashed by the grantee before it's awarded.
Now, the NIH does have a mechanism for awarding more money after the grant has been made (supplemental funding), but that's in response to unanticipated direct costs in doing the research (e.g. filling the participant pool for a clinical trial is costing more than expected), but that's NOT "can bill charge whatever they bill".
I can't speak to how things are run outside research settings, but it's not the same as the cost-plus contracts that you're seeing in private industry. Not by a long shot.
That would make more sense for research where the outcome is unknown, especially for legitimate medical research. Even then, there should be a fiscal period budget to be exceeded only when there is convincing evidence of near-term results.
There's always a "but". Research on the sex life of giant beetles or the human interaction of albino trannys doesn't count as useful.
I can't speak to the transexual albinos or bug sex lives (but I would appreciate links to those studies), but a lot of valuable research starts out in some WEIRD places. (There's also a lot that leads nowhere - that is the central purpose of research - discovering which is which.)
"Here is how indirects work. A portion of a scientist’s NIH grant goes to the university—not as a slush fund, but mostly to support research. Some of it even comes back to the researcher. Why? Because grants cover specific expenses, and science often requires general funds.
For example, if a centrifuge breaks and wasn’t budgeted in the grant, it can’t be replaced with grant funds—even if the research depends on it. Indirects cover such essential costs.
More broadly, indirects fund lab operations—electricity, security, maintenance—and help hire new researchers. They also support early-stage projects not yet ready for grants.
Is some of this money wasted? Sure. But funding cancer, infectious disease, and neuroscience research is hardly where DEI ideology takes hold."
It is also my understanding that indirect cost percentages are set by Congress, so this would be yet another instance of "Get Congress to pass a bill".
Also to reiterate - these rates are evaluated and renegotiated on a per-institution basis every four years or so.
And what's a decent part of these rates is compliance with the conditions that the grants themselves have - including strict spending restrictions. I'm in the middle of getting a non-profit research group up and running (helping researchers build better software more effectively for running their studies), and the overhead of documenting compliance with all of the regulations and restrictions on an NSF grant we joined (and has a snowball's chance in hell getting funded by this administration) meant that we effectively had to outsource those compliance functions to a larger organization with the infrastructure to meet the federal gov't's compliance demands.
Indirect rates can grow with those conditions on the grants and the costs of continually verifying and attesting that you're not ripping off the American taxpayers or abusing the staff carrying out the work. Slash some of the requirements, and indirect rates can shrink accordingly WITHOUT affecting the actual research.
(And on that note, time for me to go write some of that software for a intervention study I'm working on tackling binge eating through automated text messaging systems...)
I’ll chime in here. I believe the main issue is how much should the federal government fund in research done by NGOs. I don’t have the answers. But I think there is a perception that many times the cart is driving the horse. And that’s out of balance. If there is an entire organization and infrastructure to receive, read, weigh, and decide on grant applications dealing with thousands of subjects, is that really what our nation needs? Is it the most efficient way of distributing capital and priority to do basic research? Or, as many things that are government do, are they ossified monoliths devoted to their own continued existence? I think there’s a perception of the latter, especially dealing with DEI related topics invading hard science research.
That sounds like a worthwhile debate to have, and ultimately comes down to whom we elect to represent those sides of the argument in Congress. That's not what's happening though, as having that debate requires actually understanding what said funding is/does/the ROI/etc...
I think at some point we need to accept that many voters are wilfully ignorant about how things work and the GOP is more than happy to prey upon them (see Chris Sununu at https://x.com/Acyn/status/1889153246608134569).
We made it to 235 years under the current Constitution: will we make it to 236?
Gov. Sununu was being disingenuous saying he never heard of the impoundment act. He would know about it. Trump will force a constitutional crisis where the only tool Congress possesses is impeachment. He has already survived that twice.
Yes, he would - and he is an example of the GOP being happy to prey on ignorance rather than being informative, because it benefits them to do so. That has been and will be the same reasoning for failing their oaths to protect the Constitution.
Not necessarily. "don't care" can have "willful" connotation. But there are millions of voters almost as smart and well-informed as you who do not care in the sense of it doesn't have to work that way. They do not like the results. They want change.
Where we differ is your implication that people who disagree with you (that includes me) are ignorant stooges being played for suckers by Republicans.
I think someone that is informed and knows how things work and wants to change them is not ignorant - nor are they uncaring, because they in fact do care greatly and want to change how things work.
So, with that said do you still disagree that "Don't know and don't care" is willful ignorance?
Many find Trump distasteful. He and his new MAGA Republicans are what America needs to survive. Not the hero we want but the hero we need. Live with it.
Congress has the power of the purse, and isn't zealously protecting it as it should.
What happens if there's a federal tax protest among citizens of the Blue States and the purse shrinks? This country was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation", and as the Executive branch ignores the laws duly passed by our representatives, we're back to the Boston Harbor once more.
I will also say that you're doing Eisenhower a GREAT disservice by suggesting that he'd approve of or have any part in Trump's wanton destruction of the foundations of American scientific research. The National Institute of Health predates Ike's presidency by about 80 years, the National Science Foundation was established during the Truman administration and was awarding grants during Ike's tenure, and (D)ARPA was established during his presidency.
And to defend the DEI*A* initiatives - at least in the healthcare space - a good part of those resources were dedicated to recruiting, training, and supporting researchers from a variety of DIVERSE backgrounds, because the status quo simply wasn't cutting it. We NEED researchers from diverse backgrounds, because they have connections to and credibility with communities that are under-represented in scientific and medical study participant pools, especially when those communities don't have a lot of incentive to participate in studies, given the shameful treatment those communities have endured in the past, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study[1], which wasn't terminated until 1972.
A large part of the work I do as part of my day job[2] is working with researchers to find ways to reach those often ignored and under-served communities using technologies like apps, WhatsApp, and SMS to try and help folks that were ignored or overlooked prior to attempting to build a scientific corps that is representative of our nation at large. I'm not going to argue that some institutions didn't go overboard with it (I never included pronouns in my e-mails), but the sheer ignorance of your golem is going to burn the folks cheering it on far more than pronouns or Robin diAngelo seminars ever did.[3]
There's a GOOD argument for a overhauled system of compensating research institutions (my clients) indirect rates - some more transparency would always be better - but this is Congress's job to do - not Elon Musk's and his crew of Skibidi Boyz. It's also worth noting that those institutions don't dictate their indirect rates, but those are negotiated regularly with the federal gov't in the interest of making sure those funds are being appropriately spent[4]. If the current regime wants to axe DEI, you do that by making DEI-related expenditures exempt from the institution's negotiated indirect rate (and axe any DEI-requirements, such as diversity statements to accompany grant proposals). You don't stop paying people while you send your Dunning-Kruger crew in to figure things out AFTER you've interrupted valuable, but expensive studies.
As far as there being "nothing we can do", we can not pay our federal taxes until the laws are being enforced and implemented as written. As a Blue Stater myself, I'm looking forward to a consortium of like-minded polities banding together to prevent a brain drain elsewhere, and funding research among themselves. Katie Britt and Alabama can reap what they've sown for all I care. The 22 states suing the Trump administration might be a good place to start building that research coalition[5].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
[2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4YIBh8YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
[3] https://aldailynews.com/nih-funding-cuts-could-jeopardize-life-saving-research-in-alabama/
[4] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/appendix-Appendix%20IV%20to%20Part%20200
[5] https://wapo.st/42MffUp
No misunderstanding here: Ike would NEVER approve of Trump. He is the antithesis of everything Ike believed in: stability, intelligence, cooperation. However, Ike warned what happens when we abandon balance for partisan edge service. We rode into a cul de sac. Ike’s warning summoned a Trump in a very real way while warning what happens when a Trump Golem shows up.
Crap. I never heard of indirect rates, so I looked up. It means that a government contractor can charge whatever they bill. It costs what it costs. Contract provisions can be waived by officials who might or might not be on the take. Claims can be audited which adds to the cost and audits are driven by procedures - not knowledge. The concept can be corrupted in the interest of expediency. Did Congress create the concept of indirect rates or was it the bureaucrats to whom Congress and a President presented an idea disguised as a law.
What are you looking at?
Indirect rates (or overhead) is what is paid to support the auxiliary infrastructure used to support research. With one of my biggest clients, IT infrastructure that hosts the data sets we're collecting, the servers that run the software, and the staff that keeps that available and backed up is paid for out of indirects.
Other institutions can and do things differently, which is why these rates are not dictated by the grant recipient, but negotiated between the granter and grantee on a per-institution basis.
I looked at enough to know government contracts that include indirect costs are what project managers in private industries call "cost-plus" contracts. We avoided those types of contracts except in extraordinary circumstances such as meeting regulatory or court ordered schedules. They were impossible to budget for and audit reliably. I also discovered they seemed to be the most important subject in grant writer training.
There are cost-plus contracts in the gov't as well. (Boeing is infamous for being unable to make a profit outside of cost-plus contracts.) But this isn't how it works with research groups I work with. The amount granted tends to stay fixed, and there's even a process where the requested amount is expected to get slashed by the grantee before it's awarded.
Now, the NIH does have a mechanism for awarding more money after the grant has been made (supplemental funding), but that's in response to unanticipated direct costs in doing the research (e.g. filling the participant pool for a clinical trial is costing more than expected), but that's NOT "can bill charge whatever they bill".
I can't speak to how things are run outside research settings, but it's not the same as the cost-plus contracts that you're seeing in private industry. Not by a long shot.
That would make more sense for research where the outcome is unknown, especially for legitimate medical research. Even then, there should be a fiscal period budget to be exceeded only when there is convincing evidence of near-term results.
There's always a "but". Research on the sex life of giant beetles or the human interaction of albino trannys doesn't count as useful.
How about studies on Gila Monster saliva?[1]
Or horseshoe crab blood?[2]
I can't speak to the transexual albinos or bug sex lives (but I would appreciate links to those studies), but a lot of valuable research starts out in some WEIRD places. (There's also a lot that leads nowhere - that is the central purpose of research - discovering which is which.)
[1] https://www.research.va.gov/research_in_action/Diabetes-drug-from-Gila-monster-venom.cfm
[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/horseshoe-crab-blood-miracle-vaccine-ingredient.html
From Alex Tabarrok:
"Here is how indirects work. A portion of a scientist’s NIH grant goes to the university—not as a slush fund, but mostly to support research. Some of it even comes back to the researcher. Why? Because grants cover specific expenses, and science often requires general funds.
For example, if a centrifuge breaks and wasn’t budgeted in the grant, it can’t be replaced with grant funds—even if the research depends on it. Indirects cover such essential costs.
More broadly, indirects fund lab operations—electricity, security, maintenance—and help hire new researchers. They also support early-stage projects not yet ready for grants.
Is some of this money wasted? Sure. But funding cancer, infectious disease, and neuroscience research is hardly where DEI ideology takes hold."
It is also my understanding that indirect cost percentages are set by Congress, so this would be yet another instance of "Get Congress to pass a bill".
Also to reiterate - these rates are evaluated and renegotiated on a per-institution basis every four years or so.
And what's a decent part of these rates is compliance with the conditions that the grants themselves have - including strict spending restrictions. I'm in the middle of getting a non-profit research group up and running (helping researchers build better software more effectively for running their studies), and the overhead of documenting compliance with all of the regulations and restrictions on an NSF grant we joined (and has a snowball's chance in hell getting funded by this administration) meant that we effectively had to outsource those compliance functions to a larger organization with the infrastructure to meet the federal gov't's compliance demands.
Indirect rates can grow with those conditions on the grants and the costs of continually verifying and attesting that you're not ripping off the American taxpayers or abusing the staff carrying out the work. Slash some of the requirements, and indirect rates can shrink accordingly WITHOUT affecting the actual research.
(And on that note, time for me to go write some of that software for a intervention study I'm working on tackling binge eating through automated text messaging systems...)
I’ll chime in here. I believe the main issue is how much should the federal government fund in research done by NGOs. I don’t have the answers. But I think there is a perception that many times the cart is driving the horse. And that’s out of balance. If there is an entire organization and infrastructure to receive, read, weigh, and decide on grant applications dealing with thousands of subjects, is that really what our nation needs? Is it the most efficient way of distributing capital and priority to do basic research? Or, as many things that are government do, are they ossified monoliths devoted to their own continued existence? I think there’s a perception of the latter, especially dealing with DEI related topics invading hard science research.
That sounds like a worthwhile debate to have, and ultimately comes down to whom we elect to represent those sides of the argument in Congress. That's not what's happening though, as having that debate requires actually understanding what said funding is/does/the ROI/etc...
I think at some point we need to accept that many voters are wilfully ignorant about how things work and the GOP is more than happy to prey upon them (see Chris Sununu at https://x.com/Acyn/status/1889153246608134569).
We made it to 235 years under the current Constitution: will we make it to 236?
Gov. Sununu was being disingenuous saying he never heard of the impoundment act. He would know about it. Trump will force a constitutional crisis where the only tool Congress possesses is impeachment. He has already survived that twice.
Yes, he would - and he is an example of the GOP being happy to prey on ignorance rather than being informative, because it benefits them to do so. That has been and will be the same reasoning for failing their oaths to protect the Constitution.
I disagree. Voters don't care how things work. If it's not getting the results they want, they vote for change.
You disagree with my statement that voters are willfully ignorant?
Not necessarily. "don't care" can have "willful" connotation. But there are millions of voters almost as smart and well-informed as you who do not care in the sense of it doesn't have to work that way. They do not like the results. They want change.
Where we differ is your implication that people who disagree with you (that includes me) are ignorant stooges being played for suckers by Republicans.
For many folks the ends can justify the means
For me, it's any legitimate means to obtain results I decide are beneficial. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
And in America, the means matter.
I think someone that is informed and knows how things work and wants to change them is not ignorant - nor are they uncaring, because they in fact do care greatly and want to change how things work.
So, with that said do you still disagree that "Don't know and don't care" is willful ignorance?
Not necessarily. Some voters have all they can do to earn a living and take care of their families.
There's "Don't know" - which is just ignorance.
Then there's "Don't know and don't care" - which is willful because they are saying they don't care to know.
Many find Trump distasteful. He and his new MAGA Republicans are what America needs to survive. Not the hero we want but the hero we need. Live with it.
Honest to God. You miss the days of Bill Clinton??!! WOW