The National Science Foundation (NSF) – One of the largest supporters in the world of basic research – is to reduce its support for air funds for scientific research. A policy implemented Monday lowers the funding ceiling for so-called “indirect costs” at 15%. The agency also seems to have frozen grant scholarships overall, ordering staff to “stop allocating all financing actions until further notice”, “,” According to the scientific journal Nature.
The NSF is the third federal agency to reduce the ceiling on the financing of auxiliary research, which covers expenses such as laboratory and equipment maintenance as well as support staff and administrative costs associated with research efforts. These expenses are generally excluded by the perimeters of a research grant, and the funds are allocated in addition to the grant itself. NSF policy is aligned with similar funding attempts made by the National Health Institutes and the Energy department.
“This change aims to rationalize financing practices, increase transparency and guarantee that more resources are directed to direct scientific and technical research activities,” the NSF said in a press release.
Previous cuts by the Trump administration to seek expenses frozen by the courts. On Monday, it is not yet clear if a trial to prevent cuts by the NSF could follow.
The NSF did not estimate how the agency would save by lowering the financing ceiling. When the NIH attempted a similar measure in February, officials said it would allow the agency $ 4 billion a year. The NIH budget is five times higher than the NSF.
The University of Pittsburgh and the Carnegie Mellon University could face significant funding deficits under the new policy. Previously, research universities have negotiated their own indirect costs, with an average rate of 27%. The PitT rate is much higher than the national average at 59%. The CMU rate is 52%.
The new financing ceiling is presented in the heels of NSF cancellation subsidies across the country. The University of Pittsburgh saw five of its NSF subsidies canceled last month, totaling $ 1.7 million. The funds were reserved for the fight against disinformation and public distrust of the sciences towards science, encouraging students to pursue careers in science and the evaluation of the value of artificial intelligence programs for college students.
PitT refused to comment on the new indirect cost ceiling NSF on Monday, but in an email at the university community on Sunday, the university said it was still working to understand the overall financial consequences of politics.
“We are committed in close collaboration with universities across the country and with our associations of national representatives, such as (Association of American Universities) AAU and the association of public and land-access
The message was signed by the provost Joe McCarthy, the main vice-chancellor of the administration and finance Dwayne Pinkney, main vice-chancellor of the research Rob Rutenbar and the main vice-chancellor for the health sciences Annantha Shekhar.
“We recognize the significant impact that these advice could potentially have for the many people involved directly and indirectly,” wrote the leaders.
The financing ceiling does not apply to any previous reward, which means that the subsidies granted before May 5 would not be affected. Continuous subsidies, or those awarded during several exercises, would also be excluded from the new NSF rate. But all the subsidies granted after May 5 would be submitted to the new ceiling.
“In the end, the full impact of this short and long -term change remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that our collective university impact could be injured in an irreparably, just like our wider mission,” said Pitt leaders.
CMU did not respond to a request for comments on Monday. But the university is a applicant appointed in Another trial that seeks to block a similar funding ceiling At the National Institutes of Health.
The association of American universities, an organization that represents schools like CMU and Pitt. The president of the AAU, Barbara Snyder, published a declaration on the NSF financing ceiling, arguing that this would harm scientific advancement as well as the career of the first scientists who study in research universities.
“A reduction in the reimbursement rate (indirect costs) for NSF subsidies and cooperation agreements will simply mean fewer scientific innovations and breakthroughs for the American people – and all Americans will lose accordingly,” said Snyder.
Snyder argued that the Trump administration should rather increase its investment in agencies like the NSF to keep the United States at the forefront of innovation. She described the lower funding ceiling “gift to competitors and potential opponents such as China”.
“The launch of the knees This agency by considerably reducing its support for essential research costs is a avoidable error if our nation wants to win technological wars,” said Snyder. “It is absolutely crucial to maintain and expand the capacities of the NSF at the moment, because we are faced with threats increased to American scientific superiority.”
Fears for budding scientists fleeing the United States for China and elsewhere were raised by Pitt researchers during a laboratory visit With Pennsylvania State legislators last week.
With several federal agencies seeking to reduce research expenditure, a group of universities – including PitT – has launched an effort to define a new model for financing indirect cost.
An AAU declaration last month acknowledged that the current model for financing indirect costs “is not without boundaries This unnecessarily complicates the structure of indirect costs, leads to confusion and misunderstandings and increases administrative charges. »»
The organization has summoned a group of research institutions to develop a new national model for the financing of indirect costs on federal research grants. PitT leaders shared last week that the university is working alongside the group to submit a new model for financing indirect costs to the Trump administration.
“The new model will be shared with the federal government as a potential mechanism to finance these significant infrastructure costs,” said Pitt.