logo
logo

Federal Judge to Decide on NIH Funding Cuts

Society
‌
‌
sparksAI summary
Display highlights
  • Federal judge to rule on Trump administration's NIH funding cuts
  • Proposed cuts limit indirect costs to 15% of grants, aiming to save $4 billion yearly
  • Legal challenges raised by states and research institutions against the cuts
  • Concerns over potential job losses and hindrance to medical research projects
  • Lawsuit claims NIH violated federal laws and disregarded Congress's provisions
360 summary
  • Nicole Huberfeld doubts sustainability of cuts due to arbitrary nature and Congress's involvement
  • Samuel Bagenstos asserts NIH's non-compliance with Congress's statute as clear illegality
  • Researchers challenge NIH's comparison of indirect costs between private philanthropies and federal government
bostonglobe.combostonglobe.com
  • The states' attorneys general argue that the NIH violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act by imposing a blanket limit on indirect costs without negotiating rates with individual institutions.
  • The lawsuit alleges that the new policy is considered "arbitrary and capricious" under federal administrative law, as it was implemented suddenly without considering the actual indirect costs incurred by grant recipients.
  • Congress specifically prohibited across-the-board limits to NIH grants in a 2018 appropriations bill, indicating that the Trump administration may be disregarding the will of Congress with the proposed funding cuts.
bostonglobe.combostonglobe.com
  • Adam Sychla, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School, highlighted that the proposed NIH cuts would jeopardize their research project on programmable therapeutics, as essential supercomputers for data processing are categorized as indirect costs.
  • Researchers like Sychla argue that the term "indirect costs" is misleading, emphasizing that these costs are crucial for enabling projects like programmable therapeutics, which require advanced technology beyond regular resources.
  • Sychla's concern about the potential cessation of their research enterprise underscores the significant impact the NIH funding cuts could have on cutting-edge medical research and scientific progress.
bostonglobe.combostonglobe.com
Explore
The above information is compiled by TIME、bostonglobe.com、Fox News and does not represent any position of Arbor. It does not constitute any investment advice made by Arbor. Before making any investment decisions, investors should consider the risk factors related to the investment products based on their own circumstances and seek advice from professional investment advisors if necessary. We strive to ensure but cannot guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, and originality of the above content, and we make no promises or guarantees in this regard. As machine learning has a probabilistic nature, it may lead to incorrect reflection of facts in certain situations. You should appropriately evaluate the accuracy of any information summary based on your usage, including through manual evaluation of the information summary. We are not responsible for any losses or liabilities incurred by you due to your use, viewing, and access of the platform or failure to do so.
mobile

Remove Duplicated Information

app-iconLess is More
app-icon
Applicable for iOS and Android systems
Follow Us
logo
All rights reserved © 2025 Arbor.