What happens when billions of dollars in research funding goes away

Summary

Summary of "What happens when billions of dollars in research funding goes away"

The Indicator from Planet Money
Host: Darin Woods
Co-Host: Stephen Messaha
Release Date: February 20, 2025

---

I. Introduction: Birmingham’s Economic Transformation

The episode opens with Darin Woods highlighting the significant economic shift in Birmingham, Alabama. Originally established on the steel industry, Birmingham has reinvented itself as a hub for health research:

Darin Woods (00:14): "There is this building going up in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. And in a way, it's a symbol of how much this city and really the country's entire economy has changed. But because while Birmingham was founded on the steel industry, today it's all about health research."

This transformation underscores the pivotal role that biomedical research plays in modern economies.

II. The Role of NIH Funding in Biomedical Research

Stephen Messaha elaborates on the crucial support provided by federal funding, particularly from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in fostering the biomedical research industry:

Stephen Messaha (00:32): "Federal funding from the National Institutes of Health has been the rocket behind the biomedical research industry. NIH funds have helped transform not just Birmingham, but other cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore. It's why the University of Alabama at Birmingham is not only the largest single employer in the city, it's the largest in the entire state."

The substantial NIH funding not only sustains research institutions but also drives local economies by being major employers.

III. The Trump Administration’s Proposed Funding Cuts

The episode delves into the Trump administration's initiative to drastically reduce NIH funding, specifically targeting indirect costs associated with research grants:

Darin Woods (00:52): "And now with the Trump administration trying to make deep cuts to research funding, Birmingham and cities like it are worried about what happens if billions of dollars for the industry disappears overnight."

Stephen Messaha introduces the concept of indirect costs, which are additional expenses beyond the direct costs of research:

Stephen Messaha (03:07): "And the reason this set up all of Geeta's devices is because these cuts would mean Duke losing nearly $200 million in NIH funding."

These cuts aim to address what the administration perceives as excessive spending on overheads by research institutions.

IV. Understanding Direct vs. Indirect Costs

To provide clarity, the hosts break down the difference between direct and indirect costs using an illustrative example:

Stephen Messaha (03:16): "So the Trump administration is targeting a very specific part of NIH funding and giving a specific justification. They're cutting what's sometimes called indirect costs, right?"

Darin Woods (04:27): "And running that lab takes money from the light bulbs to the faucets to that new centrifuge with all the fancy dials. Well, the university wants to get paid for the use of that centrifuge and the tech person running it."

Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for sustaining research environments.

V. The Impact of Proposed Cuts on Universities

Geeta Swamy, Associate Vice President for Research at Duke University, shares the immediate repercussions of the proposed funding cuts:

Geeta Swamy (02:41): "So my first reaction was, what are we going to do? How are we going to manage this?"

The administration's directive drastically lowers the indirect cost rate from around 60% negotiated by Duke to a flat 15%:

Darin Woods (04:54): "And the rate Duke negotiated was about 60%. So that $100,000 grant we were talking about actually jumps up to $160,000. And this right here is what the Trump administration says is the problem. They say that is way too much spending on indirect costs."

This reduction threatens to siphon away significant financial resources that universities rely on to maintain their research infrastructure.

VI. Resistance and Legal Challenges

The administration's plan faced immediate backlash from states and universities across the nation, leading to legal interventions:

Darin Woods (07:31): "Sarah says the justification for these cuts are way less important than the simple fact that this represents billions of dollars in promised research funding going away. This is money that these universities relied on and plan. Duke University negotiated its rate with the NIH back in August and that was supposed to last for four to five years."

Nearly half of all states sought judicial relief, resulting in a federal judge freezing the order. This resistance underscores the depth of reliance on NIH funding within academic institutions.

VII. Economic and Research Implications

Sarah Helms McCarty, an economist at Samford University, provides an analysis of the broader economic and research impacts:

Sarah Helms McCarty (08:01): "Treatments for cancer and heart attacks and strokes and Parkinson's, which from an economic perspective, we would argue the government should be helping to subsidize this kind of research. We call this a public good or a positive externality."

The abrupt cuts not only threaten vital research but also jeopardize economic stability in communities dependent on research funding:

Darin Woods (08:23): "You know, this funding is also sort of a form of economic development for these areas. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into states like North Carolina and Alabama. Cutting this funding also means extracting these dollars out of communities that have come to rely on them."

VIII. Job Security and Institutional Stability

The proposed cuts have direct consequences on employment and institutional operations:

Sarah Helms McCarty (08:52): "You know, anecdotally I have friends who work in the labs at UAB and they're very concerned. I was texting with them last week, like, hey, you know. And they're like, yeah, I'm dusting off my resume because I don't know what this means for me."

Duke University anticipates thousands of job losses, and institutions like North Carolina State University have already implemented hiring freezes in response.

IX. Perspectives from Private Foundations

Contrasting NIH funding, private grant providers like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation adopt a different approach to indirect costs:

Darin Woods (06:09): "Sarah says part of that is because groups like the Gates foundation offer more flexibility for spending. And she adds, the type of research private groups are doing tends to be a lot less lab intensive."

The Gates Foundation caps indirect costs at around 10%, reflecting their focus on less overhead-heavy projects that facilitate broader application rather than intensive laboratory research.

X. Broader Political and Economic Context

Despite the administration's assertion that the cuts are a step towards more efficient funding allocation, the economic significance of the proposed reductions remains contentious:

Stephen Messaha (09:40): "We reached out to the NIH. It redirected us to Health and Human Services. So we asked HHS if the funds saved from cutting the indirect costs would go back into direct research. We also asked if they could respond to criticisms that the abruptness of these attempted cuts are threatening life-saving work. The HHS did not respond to our emails or a couriered letter detailing these questions."

This lack of transparency and communication exacerbates concerns about the long-term viability of biomedical research funding under the new administration.

XI. Conclusion: The Future of Biomedical Research Funding

The episode concludes by reflecting on the delicate balance between managing federal budgets and sustaining essential research. While the administration posits that reducing indirect costs will channel more funds directly into research, the immediate and potential long-term impacts on institutions, economies, and life-saving research present significant challenges. The resistance from universities and states indicates that any such sweeping changes require careful consideration of the multifaceted roles that research funding plays in both scientific advancement and economic stability.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Darin Woods (00:14): "There is this building going up in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. And in a way, it's a symbol of how much this city and really the country's entire economy has changed... today it's all about health research."

• Stephen Messaha (00:32): "Federal funding from the National Institutes of Health has been the rocket behind the biomedical research industry."

• Geeta Swamy (02:41): "So my first reaction was, what are we going to do? How are we going to manage this?"

• Sarah Helms McCarty (08:01): "Treatments for cancer and heart attacks and strokes and Parkinson's... we call this a public good or a positive externality."

• Sarah Helms McCarty (08:52): "I'm dusting off my resume because I don't know what this means for me."

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights from the episode, providing a clear understanding of the implications surrounding the proposed NIH funding cuts without needing to listen to the original podcast.

Transcript

[NPR Announcer]

Npr.

[Darin Woods]

There is this building going up in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. And in a way, it's a symbol of how much this city and really the country's entire economy has changed. But because while Birmingham was founded on the steel industry, today it's all about health research.

[Stephen Messaha]

Federal funding from the National Institutes of Health has been the rocket behind the biomedical research industry. NIH funds have helped transform not just Birmingham, but other cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore. It's why the University of Alabama at Birmingham is not only the largest single employer in the city, it's the largest in the entire state.

[Darin Woods]

And now with the Trump administration trying to make deep cuts to research funding, Birmingham and cities like it are worried about what happens if billions of dollars for the industry disappears overnight. This is the indicator from Planet Money. I'm Darin Woods.

[Stephen Messaha]

And I'm Stephen Messaha from the Gulf States Newsroom. On today's show, we're pulling out our microscopes for a close look into how these research grants actually work and and why the Trump administration says the NIH is getting ripped off.

[Darin Woods]

And we talk about what deep cuts to funding would mean in a deep red state.

[NPR Announcer]

This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on thinkorswim. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Charles Schwab Ad]

This message comes from Redfin. With the Redfin app, you'll know the moment your next place hits the market. Whether you're looking to buy your dream home or rent a sweet apartment. Give Redfin your gotta have it wish list of property features and you'll receive real time notifications tailored just for you, ready to see it up close. And personal scheduling a tour is just a tap away. Don't wait to find your perfect match. Download the Redfin app and start searching today.

[NPR Announcer]

This message comes from Charles Schwab. When it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices like full service, wealth management and advice when you need it. You can also invest on your own and trade on think or swim. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Stephen Messaha]

First off, gotta give a quick disclaimer. The University of Alabama at Birmingham handles the finances and oversees my organization, the Gulf States Newsroom. But that newsroom and the business departments, they operate independently from each other and.

[Darin Woods]

With that out of the way.

[Geeta Swamy]

So my first reaction was, what are we going to do? How are we going to manage this?

[Darin Woods]

Geeta Swamy is the associate vice President for Research at Duke University. And like a lot of people, she found out about this NIH news when it was released late on a Friday.

[Stephen Messaha]

So you kind of canceled your weekend plans to get on all these group.

[Geeta Swamy]

Calls, lots of emails on Friday night, text messages Saturday, and then started with zoom calls on Sunday with some of these groups.

[Stephen Messaha]

And the reason this set up all of Geeta's devices is because these cuts would mean duke losing nearly $200 million in NIH funding.

[Darin Woods]

Now, the Trump administration is targeting a very specific part of NIH funding and giving a specific justification. They're cutting what's sometimes called indirect costs, right?

[Stephen Messaha]

So let's say we want to do a study into. I don't know why hangnails are so annoying.

[Darin Woods]

We've got to get some research into this.

[Stephen Messaha]

Let's say we were asking for $100,000 in grant funding for the NIH to do this. And this money can only be spent really on things to buy supplies, to.

[Geeta Swamy]

Pay individuals their salary or portion of their salary to work on that.

[Stephen Messaha]

What we're talking about here is the direct cost of research.

[Darin Woods]

But the thing is, it's not the only cost, right?

[Stephen Messaha]

Like, take that biomedical building going up in Birmingham. Like, let's say we hire a grad student for this research, and they end up doing their important hangnail analysis in a specialized lab there.

[Darin Woods]

And running that lab takes money from the light bulbs to the faucets to that new centrifuge with all the fancy dials. And only one dude in the lab knows how to use it because it's so complicated and expensive. Well, the university wants to get paid for the use of that centrifuge and the tech person running it.

[Stephen Messaha]

And to pay for all that, research institutes add on top of those grants what's called the indirect cost.

[Darin Woods]

And figuring out the rate for that cost is a long process with plenty of paperwork and back and forths between the university and NIH that's handing out grants.

[Geeta Swamy]

They actually come and visit your institution, do a walkthrough of a space that you've identified, go through various components of it to verify what you said, and come up with that rate.

[Darin Woods]

And the rate Duke negotiated was about 60%. So that $100,000 grant we were talking about actually jumps up to $160,000. And this right here is what the Trump administration says is the problem. They say that is way too much spending on indirect costs.

[Stephen Messaha]

On Feb 7, the NIH sent out this memo that said, from now on, indirect rates for all grants are 15% and not just for future grants, but you know, grants already approved. The administration says that would save $4 billion a year starting immediately, which also it sounds like a lot, but it's not even 1% of Doge's goal to cut a trillion dollars or so from the federal budget.

[Darin Woods]

Either way, as you can imagine, universities and their states did not take this well. In fact, nearly half of all states su A federal judge quickly froze the order.

[Stephen Messaha]

So the NIH's argument ultimately here is that that is a lot of money and way too much to be spending here. I mean, I think a lot of people would see it 61% for like admin and facility sounds like a lot. I mean how do you justify that amount?

[Geeta Swamy]

It sounds like a lot. I mean there is a lot that we do and you know, research is expensive.

[Stephen Messaha]

It's also a lot. When you compare what private grant providers are willing to pay, like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, it caps how much it's willing give universities in indirect costs at 10%.

[Darin Woods]

Gita says part of that is because groups like the Gates foundation offer more flexibility for spending. And she adds, the type of research private groups are doing tends to be a lot less lab intensive.

[Stephen Messaha]

Right. Like when the nih, they might be all about discovering the cure for a disease with a grant. The Gates foundation is more about figuring out how to get that cure to under resourced areas. And that kind of work just requires a lot less specialized equipment.

[Geeta Swamy]

You don't need a biocontainment lab that has to have sophisticated, you know, anterooms, pre rooms, clean rooms, all those kinds of things to do.

[Stephen Messaha]

That things I imagine are pretty expensive.

[Geeta Swamy]

Very expensive, Very expensive, quite costly.

[Darin Woods]

Sarah Helms McCarty says all this back and forth over the details about direct or indirect costs, well, that could be missing the big picture here.

[Sarah Helms McCarty]

To me that's not necessarily the point of what happened. What happened was this abrupt, unanticipated, unwarned, unplanned for change in what they say they're going to provide for.

[Stephen Messaha]

Sarah is an economist at Samford University, which is located in one of Birmingham suburbs.

[Darin Woods]

Sarah says the justification for these cuts are way less important than the simple fact that this represents billions of dollars in promised research funding going away. This is money that these universities relied on and plan. Duke University negotiated its rate with the NIH back in August and that was supposed to last for four to five years.

[Stephen Messaha]

And Sarah says the research at UAB that would be threatened by this. Well, we're not actually talking hangnails here. This is literally life saving work and.

[Sarah Helms McCarty]

Treatments for cancer and heart attacks and strokes and Parkinson's, which from an economic perspective, we would argue the government should be helping to subsidize this kind of research. We call this a public good or a positive externality. This idea that when they create these breakthroughs in medicine, this is information that can save lives across the country and across the world.

[Darin Woods]

You know, this funding is also sort of a form of economic development for these areas. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into states like North Carolina and Alabama. Cutting this funding also means extracting these dollars out of communities that have come to rely on them.

[Stephen Messaha]

And while these cuts are supposed to be targeting facilities and administration, a lot of those things universities will still have to pay for something would have to give. And Sarah says that would certainly mean jobs, including research ones.

[Sarah Helms McCarty]

You know, anecdotally I have friends who work in the labs at UAB and they're very concerned. I was texting with them last week, like, hey, you know. And they're like, yeah, I'm dusting off my resume because I don't know what this means for me.

[Darin Woods]

Duke University says this would likely cost thousands of jobs. It's also caused a hiring freeze at North Carolina State.

[Stephen Messaha]

Now, we should keep this all in perspective. Even if the courts let these cuts go through, it's not like it's an end to all NIH funding or health research. Members of some conservative think tanks have praised the cuts, in part saying it could free up more funding to go to that direct research. And in the memo announcing these cuts, the NIH says it's vital to make sure as much of the funding as possible goes to the direct research rather than overhead.

[Darin Woods]

We reached out to the nih. It redirected us to Health and Human Services. So we asked HHS if the funds saved from cutting the indirect costs would go back into direct research. We also asked if they could respond to criticisms that the abruptness of these attempted cuts are threatening life saving work. The HHS did not respond to our emails or a couriered letter detailing these questions. This episode was produced by Cooper Katz McKim with engineering by Neil Tiefold. It was fact checked by Angel Carreras. Cake and Cannon edits the show and the indicator is a production of npr.

[NPR Announcer]

This message comes from Warby Parker. What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker? It's all the invisible extras without the extra cost, like free adjustments for life. Find your [e-mail] or visit one of their hundreds of stores around the country. Support for NPR and the following message come from Rosetta Stone the perfect app to achieve your language learning goals. No matter how busy your schedule gets, it's designed to maximize study time with immersive 10 minute lessons and audio practice for your commute. Plus, tailor your learning plan for specific objectives like travel. Get Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership for 50% off and unlimited access to 25 language courses. Learn more at rosettastone.com NPR this message comes from Mint Mobile. Mint Mobile took what's wrong with wireless? And made it right. They offer premium wireless plans for less and all plans include high speed data, unlimited talk and text, and nationwide coverage. See for [e-mail] Switch.