>        I am in the process of negotiating a clinical trial agreement with
>Wyeth-Ayerst and we have come to "the wall" on the issue of IDC (what else?).
>The company says the following:  "It is now Wyeth-Ayerst policy to limit the
>reimbursement of institutional overhead to no more than 20 percent".  Has
>anyone dealt with Wyeth-Ayerst recently and come up against this policy?
>Any luck getting them to go higher?  Our institutional policy is 25% and I am
>very reluctant to accept "business" at a rate lower than that, but at the same
>time I am reluctant to walk away from a sizable contract.  Either reply
>via resadm-l or send a personal message to me at the e-mail address shown
>below.   THANKS!
>
>Doug Wilkerson, Ph.D.           VOICE:  (419) 381-4252
>Assoc. V.P. for Research        FAX:    (419) 381-4262
>Professor of Pharmacology       e-mail: xxxxxx@GEMINI.MCO.EDU
>Medical College of Ohio
>3000 Arlington Ave.
>Toledo, OH 43614
>

Doug,

Someone mentioned to me that the FEDS are going to start looking at clinical
trials and indirect costs (I do not want to start a rumor, it's just
something I heard from a second hand conversation) and they may want to know
why your institution is not charging full OH.  After all is Uncle Sam a
second class citizen or what?  However, one sticks to the institutional
policy  on a consistent basis, then skillful negotiations with the company
is necessary as most companies understand clearly what overhead is.
Further, as many companies give the per pt cost and the PI needs to figure
out if the study can be done, including the 25% as a given line item to be
budgeted in along with other study costs.  Of course it's easier to say all
of this and  sometimes another story to enroll faculty in understanding the
need for recovery of indirect cost on clinical trials, let alone companies.
Let's hear how you resolve this.
Sandra Mann, MPA  xxxxxx@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Assistant Director, University Research
University of Florida
219 Grinter Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611