![\"\"](\"http:\/\/labrigger.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/growth.png\" "\\"growth\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
You probably already know that many grants have, in addition to the direct component that goes to the lab, an indirect component that goes to the institution.<\/p>\n
US institutions negotiate with the NIH to set a percentage for all awards. For example, here<\/a> are Harvard’s (relatively high) indirect rates. These indirect funds are used by departments and institutions to keep the lights on, pay admin staff, cover startups, and other important things.<\/p>\n A recent Nature article<\/a> by Paula Stephan offers this insight into one aspect of how indirect rates are set: The article concludes with, “Perhaps it is time for deans in the biomedical sciences to rent some of that excess space to their colleagues in chemistry and physics.”<\/p>\n Has biomedical research grown too big? Does it need to contract? Or is it only PhD programs that need to contract?<\/a> On that topic, the article also suggests making graduate students more expensive to academic labs, and staffing labs with more professional scientists.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \n You probably already know that many grants have, in addition to the direct component that goes to the lab, an indirect component that goes to the institution.<\/p>\n US institutions negotiate with the NIH to set…<\/p>\n
\n“A US government accounting rule called A21 means that the more debt universities have from construction, the more they can add to grants for overhead costs. If a university borrows $100 million to build a new facility and pays 4% interest, it can increase its indirect rate by including the $4-million interest payment in the calculation. ”<\/p>\n