A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order on the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) cut on indirect costs awarded to researchers on Friday. But, the public health agency is finding ways to halt research funding altogether.
The University of Utah joined one of the three separate lawsuits challenging NIH’s decision to cap indirect cost rates at 15% on Feb. 7.
Judge Angel Kelley in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts quickly blocked NIH’s funding cap from going into effect on Feb. 10. The judge’s temporary restraining order extension will remain in effect until she makes her final decision. She did not set a date for when she will issue her ruling.
Indirect costs, formally dubbed Facilities and Administrative expenses, include spending on research infrastructure, lab equipment and administrative overhead. These support research across all awarded grants.
The U’s current negotiated indirect cost rate stands at 54%. The school risks losing $43.5 million in research funding if NIH’s cap goes into effect.
“Playing the System”
Despite the court order, the NIH is refusing to post new meetings to review new grant proposals to the Federal Register, effectively freezing all funding for future research projects. So far, the public health agency’s refusal to add any meetings to the register already halted 16,000 grant applications, according to NPR.
“We’re keeping an eye on it, and nationally, it’s being evaluated for further legal action. At this point, we don’t have further advice on how to engage with those study sections or with sponsors in that space,” Brent Brown, the University of Utah’s assistant VP for research and director for sponsored projects, said at a virtual Q&A Friday.
Generally, grant review meetings must be posted on the Federal Register 15 days in advance. Still, the Trump administration is trying to push the notice to 35 days, which works to slow down the process. It may also be a workaround to legal challenges, Jakob Jensen, associate VP for research at the U said.
“One could argue that the prior legal challenge already addressed this, and I think that would probably be the perspective of the federal judge who already made a ruling on this,” Jensen said. “It’s a little bit of legal maneuvering by the White House as well as a little bit of playing the system.”
The battle over indirect costs rates comes amid mass firings at the NIH, with the agency’s offices dedicated to reviewing and administering grants getting “hit hard,” according to NPR. However, while the federal government is seeing huge staffing cuts, Jensen assured researchers that any cuts to funding will not lead to firings.
“I know there’s a lot of fear because there are a lot of people losing their jobs at the federal level right now,” he said. “And of course, we’re sympathetic to them and thinking about them, but here at the U, we are still in very good shape. We could go multiple years right now and not change anything and be just fine.”
