The Institute for Research on Innovation & Science (IRIS) could be a great resource for someone wanting to dig into this more. I stumbled across them while looking for something else yesterday.

From the New Features description on the 2024 data page:

"IRIS member universities represent 103 campuses across the country. IRIS members submit data on purchasing, human resources, and grant administration, which form the bases for the IRIS-UMETRICS dataset. The most recent release of the dataset contains data on 580,000 funded awards worth $192 billion, payments to more than 1.2 million vendors ($35 billion), and wages to approximately 985,000 employees."

https://iris.isr.umich.edu/research-data/2024datarelease/

They include a variety of institution types.

Katie Walker | Director, Finance & Administration | Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Boston University | Sargent College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences
xxxxxx@bu.edu  |  cpr.bu.edu  | 940 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hagen - hagen027 at umn.edu (via resadm-l list) <xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 9:45 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] A Day in My Life

This is a terrific narrative!!  I am going to share with our leadership.

I am interested in knowing more about the data stating the loss by institution.  I am assuming it is based only on new awards issued directly from NIH in 2024.  If others are doing an analysis for their institutions, I'd encourage you to look at data from all active awards in your system (not just those that were issued in 2024), and don't forget to include pass-through awards from other institutions on which NIH is the prime funder.  Including all awards, and subs from others on which NIH is the prime, increases the impact at my institution by more than one third over what this Google docs states as the impact.

Please don't get me wrong, I think this Google doc is fantastic!  It is really great to have all of this information assembled into one place.  Thank you!  I just want to be sure everyone realizes that the impact is probably even larger than it appears, especially since subawards from other institutions where NIH is the prime funder aren't included but would also be subject to the 15% cap.  I don't think there would be a way to get at the subaward data where NIH is the prime, except from within our own financial systems.

David

--
David Hagen
Director
Office of Cost Analysis
University of Minnesota
612-626-9895

On 2/12/2025 7:51 AM, Debra Schaller-Demers wrote:

	This is wonderful - thanks for sharing. This description of direct/indirect truly puts it into real world terms. I hope people will share this broadly with those outside of research administration to build capacity for fighting back.

	Debbie

	Debra Schaller-Demers, MSOM
	Senior Director, Research Integrity and Compliance, NYU
	C (347) 852-4610
	E xxxxxx@nyu.edu <mailto:xxxxxx@nyu.edu>
	E xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>

	Society of Research Administrators International (SRAI) Past-President
	Adjunct Lecturer, CUNY SPS xxxxxx@SPS.cuny.edu <mailto:xxxxxx@SPS.cuny.edu>

	On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 8:25 AM Breen, Neal - NBreen at connecticutchildrens.org <http://connecticutchildrens.org>  (via resadm-l list) <xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org <mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org> > wrote:

		Hi All,

		The post below was written by a PhD student from Harvard who just happens to hail from my small town here in Connecticut.  I’ve been friends with her parents for well over 20 years and watched her grow up.  I know things are on hold due to the TRO, but it’s well worth the read as it describes the potential direct impact of reduced IDC in labs across the country.

		Neal

		Neal Breen, MBA

		Senior Manager, Post-Award & Research Finance

		Connecticut Children’s
		860.881.8476 (Cell)

		xxxxxx@connecticutchildrens.org <mailto:xxxxxx@connecticutchildrens.org>

		As major news outlets seem to be focused on other stories recently (Kendrick vs. Drake feud anyone?), I wanted to draw attention to a decision that the federal government made on Friday that directly impacts my life and will soon impact yours. On Friday, the NIH under the new administration has decided to cap indirect research costs at 15%. Okay, so what does this mean and why should we care?

		Many biomedical research projects in the US are funded by the NIH. When a researcher applies for an NIH grant (an extremely competitive process) and gets funded, the specific lab and project gets that money to conduct the specific research outlined in the grant. This is known as direct research costs. In addition, the institution where the research is conducted gets more money on top of that. These additional funds go towards electricity, janitorial staff, shared instruments/equipment, accounting, safety measures, and more. This is called indirect research costs. Currently, the NIH and institutions negotiate on how much indirect research costs the institution will get with their grants. This number can range from 10% to 70% of the grant depending on the institution and the project. Now, after Friday's decision by the federal government, that number will be capped at 15%. This will impact all NIH-funded research institutions, but as I do not know the financial details of every school and institution, I will tell you how it will affect me:

		I am a PhD student at Harvard researching a protein implicated in brain cancers, including glioblastoma and pediatric gliomas. The goal of my project is to learn more about a particular protein that we think has the potential to be a target for brain cancer drugs. I have built tools to accelerate the research of this protein and learned more about how the protein works. One of the tools I have built will allow my lab and others to more easily search for drugs that will work on this protein and hopefully kill brain cancer cells in patients.

		A day in my life:

		I (my salary paid by direct costs, health insurance by indirect costs) walk into the building, say "good morning!" to the security guard (paid by indirect costs) and walk upstairs to my lab. I turn on the lights in my lab (electricity paid for by indirect costs) and put my stuff down by my desk (infrastructure paid for by indirect costs). I quickly run to the bathroom (which is cleaned daily thanks to indirect costs), and then I prepare the material I need to purify a protein (purchased by direct costs) and prep my supplies in a special cold room that is set to 39 degrees F (special cold room paid for and kept cold by indirect costs). To purify this protein, I use a ~$70,000 instrument that is shared across my department (indirect cost). While the instrument is running, I go on the server (computational resources paid for by indirect costs) to model the movement of this protein. When the instrument is done running, I realize I need another material to further purify my protein. I go to our ordering database and input the material (paid for direct costs). Our lab manager (paid for by indirect costs) finds the material at the best price and figures out the details to get it shipped to me in a timely fashion on dry ice so that it stays cold in transit. I realize it is lunch time and I decide to go to a lunch seminar where a visiting professor from another state is presenting their work (their travel expenses paid by indirect costs). After lunch, now that my protein is semi-pure, I need to concentrate it. I go to use the centrifuge in our lab (paid for by direct costs), but it is not turning on. I ask our lab manager (again, paid for by indirect costs) to contact the centrifuge company to come fix it. As we did not budget for fixing the centrifuge in our grant, the maintenance or replacement (~$15,000) of it is paid for by indirect costs. After lunch, I plan out my experiments for the next day, booking an instrument that is found not in my lab, but in a core research facility (paid for by indirect costs) because it is too expensive (~$150,000) for one single lab to purchase on direct costs. While I am at my desk, the safety team (paid for by indirect costs) comes by to pick up my radioactivity badge (paid for by indirect costs). They ask me questions to make sure I am following protocol and not exposing myself and others to dangerous amounts of radioactivity. They then take my badge and bring it to a facility to test my radioactivity exposure (paid for by indirect costs). I thank them for keeping me and my labmates safe. Before I head out at the end of the day, I check on my cancer cells (purchased by direct costs) in a sterile environment (paid for and maintained by indirect costs) in the special cell room we have in our department (room maintained by indirect costs).

		This is just one day in my life in which I am very reliant on high indirect costs to complete my research. I use direct costs to specifically purchase supplies directly related to my project, but I am privileged that Harvard receives high indirect cost funding to provide me with cutting edge infrastructure and equipment. I am fortunate enough to be conducting research at one of the world's best research institutions. Because of where I am, I have access to personnel and instruments that accelerate my research in ways I only could have imagined when I was an undergraduate student at Bucknell. So much of the research I do depends on infrastructure that is funded through NIH indirect costs. If the NIH caps indirect costs at 15%, I will no longer be able to do the research that I do now. This is bad for me personally, but it is also bad for anyone that will ever get brain cancer. Right now, there is no cure for glioblastoma. In fact, once diagnosed, most people do not live longer than one year. This is one story, my story, of how the federal government will kneecap my work. Yet this will affect all of us, in red states and blue states. This will affect those of you who voted for Harris and those of you who voted for Trump. This will stop basic research. This will halt clinical trials. This will delay the development of life-saving treatments. I urge you, regardless of your political affiliation, to write to your state legislators and governors and ask them to prevent this from happening. Below, I have drafted a template email you can use. I have also posted a link to a spreadsheet that details the current NIH funded projects (including mine!). Please feel free to share this post if you would like.

		Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ls7sPd0QUF3Vv6O2gV9M0-hykcI8mwRsSYljuSGtKz0/edit?gid=1349316786#gid=1349316786

		Template email:

		Subject: Protecting Research Funding – Concerns About NIH’s 15% Indirect Cost Cap

		Dear [name],

		I am writing as a concerned citizen of [state] to express my deep concern regarding the proposed 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH-funded research. This policy change threatens to undermine the ability of universities and research institutions to sustain high-quality biomedical research, ultimately hindering scientific progress and innovation.

		Indirect costs cover essential infrastructure, including laboratory maintenance, compliance with federal regulations, and support for core facilities that enable groundbreaking discoveries. Capping these costs at 15% would limit institutions to conduct NIH-funded research, support early-career scientists, and maintain state-of-the-art facilities.

		States like [state] benefit significantly from NIH-funded research, which not only advances public health but also drives economic growth and job creation. A reduction in institutional support could lead to job losses, hinder medical advancements, and slow down progress in areas such as cancer research, neuroscience, and infectious diseases.

		I urge you to oppose this indirect cost cap and advocate for a funding structure that ensures the sustainability of scientific research. Continued investment in NIH-funded research is critical to maintaining the United States' leadership in biomedical innovation.

		Thank you for your time and for your commitment to supporting scientific research. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue further and provide any additional information that may be helpful.

		Sincerely,

		[name]

		Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

		**Connecticut Children's Confidentiality Notice**
		This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message, including any attachments.

		- = - = - = - = - = - = -

		This email was sent to xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>  via the Research Administrator's mailing list.

		To unsubscribe from RESADM-L, go to https://lists.healthresearch.org and enter your subscribed email address into the "My account and unsubscriptions" area at the bottom of the page. This also allows you to switch to Digest Mode or to temporarily suspend emails. You will be emailed a link to change all these settings.

		List archives are available at: https://lists.healthresearch.org/resadm-l

		Please keep in mind that responses are copied verbatim to 10,000+ users - - please refrain from "Me Too"s and clicking on reactions to emails. That will keep your email environment clean. Thanks!

	- = - = - = - = - = - = -

	This email was sent to xxxxxx@UMN.EDU <mailto:xxxxxx@UMN.EDU>  via the Research Administrator's mailing list.

	To unsubscribe from RESADM-L, go to https://lists.healthresearch.org and enter your subscribed email address into the "My account and unsubscriptions" area at the bottom of the page. This also allows you to switch to Digest Mode or to temporarily suspend emails. You will be emailed a link to change all these settings.

	List archives are available at: https://lists.healthresearch.org/resadm-l

	Please keep in mind that responses are copied verbatim to 10,000+ users - - please refrain from "Me Too"s and clicking on reactions to emails. That will keep your email environment clean. Thanks!

--
David Hagen
Director
Office of Cost Analysis
University of Minnesota
612-626-9895

- = - = - = - = - = - = -

This email was sent to xxxxxx@BU.EDU via the Research Administrator's mailing list.

To unsubscribe from RESADM-L, go to https://lists.healthresearch.org and enter your subscribed email address into the "My account and unsubscriptions" area at the bottom of the page. This also allows you to switch to Digest Mode or to temporarily suspend emails. You will be emailed a link to change all these settings.

List archives are available at: https://lists.healthresearch.org/resadm-l

Please keep in mind that responses are copied verbatim to 10,000+ users - - please refrain from "Me Too"s and clicking on reactions to emails. That will keep your email environment clean. Thanks!