Connect with us

The Conversation

How much does scientific progress cost? Without government dollars for research infrastructure, breakthroughs become improbable

Published

13 hours ago

on

theconversation.com – Aliasger K. Salem, Bighley Chair and Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iowa – 2025-02-12 07:53:00

How much does scientific progress cost? Without government dollars for research infrastructure, breakthroughs become improbable

America may not maintain its position as a global leader in biomedical research without federal support.
Sean Gladwell/Moment via Getty Images

Aliasger K. Salem, University of Iowa

Biomedical research in the U.S. is world-class in part because of a long-standing partnership between universities and the federal government.

On Feb. 7, 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a policy that could weaken the position of the United States as a global leader in scientific innovation by slashing funds to the infrastructure that allows universities and other institutions to conduct research in the first place.

Universities across the nation carry out research on behalf of the federal government. Central to this partnership is federal grant funding, which is awarded through a rigorous review process. These grants are the lifeblood of biomedical research in the U.S.

When you think of the costs of scientific research, you might picture the people who conduct the research, and the materials and lab equipment they use. But these don’t encompass all the essential components of research. Every scientific and medical breakthrough also depends on laboratory facilities; heating, air conditioning, ventilation and electricity; and personnel to ensure research is conducted securely and in accordance with federal regulations.

These critical indirect costs of research are both substantial and unavoidable, not least because it can be very expensive to build, maintain and equip space to conduct research at the frontiers of knowledge. The NIH stated that it spent more than US$35 billion on grants in the 2023 fiscal year, which went to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other kinds of research institutions across the nation. Approximately $9 billion of this funding was allocated to indirect costs.

NIH grants have supported the direct costs of my own scientific research on developing treatments for conditions ranging from cancer to eye diseases. I would be unable to carry out my research without the support of the indirect costs the NIH plans to cut.

What are indirect costs?

Indirect costs, also known as facilities and administration costs, or overhead, are funds provided to institutions to cover expenses that are not directly tied to specific research projects but are essential for their execution. Unlike direct costs, which cover salaries, supplies and experiments, indirect costs support the overall research environment, ensuring that scientists have the necessary resources to conduct their work effectively.

Indirect costs include maintaining optimal laboratory spaces, specialized facilities providing services like imaging and gene analysis, high-speed computing, research security, patient and personnel safety, hazardous waste disposal, utilities, equipment maintenance, administrative support, regulatory compliance, information technology services, and maintenance staff to clean and supply labs and facilities.

YouTube video
Academic institutions conduct research on behalf of the federal government.

Research institutions that receive federal grants must comply with the rules and regulations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. These guidelines dictate the indirect cost rates of each institution.

Institutions submit proposals to federal agencies that outline the costs associated with maintaining research infrastructure. The cost allocation division of the Department of Health and Human Services reviews these proposals to ensure compliance with federal policies.

Indirect rates can range from 15% to 70%, with the specific level depending on the research and infrastructure needs of an institution.

Typically, institutions undergo an exacting process to renegotiate their indirect rates every four years, factoring in components such as general, departmental and program administration, building and equipment depreciation, interest, operations and maintenance, and library expenses. Universities need to carefully justify these cost components to ensure the sustainability of research infrastructure and compliance with federal requirements.

Notably, indirect costs from grants do not cover the full cost of carrying out research at universities. In 2023, colleges and universities contributed approximately $27 billion of their own funding, such as money from their endowments, to support research. This included $6.8 billion in indirect costs that the federal government did not reimburse.

Slashing vital research funding

In its February announcement, the National Institutes of Health declared that it would no longer determine indirect costs rates based on the needs of each institution. Instead, it would issue a standard indirect cost rate of 15% across all grants. The rationale given by the agency for the cap is to “ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

It notably comes after the Trump administration and Elon Musk have sought to slash federal spending, with Musk criticizing indirect cost rates as “a ripoff.”

A standard 15% rate would significantly affect an institution’s ability to maintain its research infrastructure. For example, if a university had a 50% indirect cost rate in 2024, it would receive $150,000 for a $100,000 grant, with $50,000 allocated to indirect costs. With the new NIH cap, this would drop to $115,000, with only $15,000 for indirect costs.

The scale of this cut in research support becomes apparent at the state level, with harms to both red and blue states. For example, Texas institutions would face a reduction of over $310 million, and institutions in Iowa a reduction of nearly $37 million. California would lose more than $800 million, and Washington over $178 million.

Person wearing nitrile gloves pipetting a liquid into a vial over a lab area
Research has both indirect and direct costs – and both are essential.
David Ryder/Stringer via Getty Images News

The NIH compared the new 15% cap to the indirect cost rates that foundations typically set for institutions of higher education. It pointed to the 10% rate granted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Smith Richardson Foundation, the 12% rate of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the 15% rate of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, John Templeton Foundation, Packard Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

However, many researchers and funders have criticized this claim as misleading. A spokesperson for the Gates Foundation has previously stated that the listed rate does not reflect how the organization allocates its funds. Universities have pointed out that they often accept foundation grants with low or zero overhead rates because these grants constitute a relatively small portion of their funding and are often spent on early-stage faculty whose careers need additional support.

In addition, it is only because NIH grants cover a significant portion of their overhead costs that research institutions are able to accept foundation grants with such low indirect rates.

Biomedical researchers respond

Scientists and researchers responded to the NIH announcement with deep concern about the negative effects these funding cuts would have on biomedical research in the United States.

The Council on Governmental Relations, which monitors federal policy for major universities and medical research centers, stated that “America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound,” urging the NIH to “rescind this dangerous policy before its harms are felt by Americans.”

The president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that the NIH policy would “diminish the nation’s research capacity, slowing scientific progress and depriving patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics and preventative interventions.”

Research institutions, scientific societies, advocacy groups and lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed back against the 15% cap on indirect costs, urging NIH leadership to reconsider its policy.

Soon after the attorneys general of 22 states filed lawsuits challenging the policy, a federal judge issued a temporary pause in those states until lifted by the court.

Scientists expect the long-term effects of these funding cuts to significantly damage U.S. biomedical research. As the debate over federal support to academic research institutions unfolds, how institutions adapt and whether the NIH reconsiders its approach will determine the future of scientific research in the United States.The Conversation

Aliasger K. Salem, Bighley Chair and Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iowa

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post How much does scientific progress cost? Without government dollars for research infrastructure, breakthroughs become improbable appeared first on theconversation.com

Related Topics:

The Conversation

Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs

Published

5 hours ago

on

February 12, 2025

By

theconversation.com – Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame – 2025-02-12 16:41:00

Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs

Inflation is building again; but the housing industry may find it harder to do so as a result of Trump tariffs.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Jason Reed, University of Notre Dame

Inflation figures released on Feb. 12, 2025, will come as a disappointment to Americans who hoped President Donald Trump would be true to his word on bringing down prices “on Day One.” It will also put pressure on the new administration to be wary of policies that may heat up inflation – and that includes tariffs.

The consumer price index, which measures the change in prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services, rose unexpectedly from December to January by 0.5%. It means consumers are paying around 3% more on item prices than they were a year ago.

Economists had been expecting the pace of inflation to slow in January.

The news isn’t good for anyone concerned. It means inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s long-run target of 2% – making it harder for the central bank to cut rates at its next meeting on March 19. At its last meeting, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee kept its benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at a range of 4.25-4.50%.

Following the release of the latest inflation data, markets have a stronger conviction that the Fed will again hold rates steady when it meets in March.

It also means more pain for consumers. Higher interest rates set by the Fed play a large role in determining rates for mortgages, credit cards and auto loans. If January’s rate of inflation were to continue throughout 2025, consumers would see a painful 6.2% annualized inflation rate.

And although it would be churlish to link the latest jump in inflation to an administration just weeks old, it does put into focus the current slate of Trump economic policies. Economists have long warned that imposing tariffs on imports and cutting taxes does little to curb inflation – rather, they may contribute to faster price increases.

Already, China has been hit by a 10% tariff on all products. Trump has also proposed a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, and he mulled imposing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico – two of the United States’ largest trading partners.

I believe that if these wide-ranging tariffs come into effect, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to keep rates elevated for the remainder of 2025.

Revving up for higher car costs

One of the largest drivers of inflation in January was rent increases, which accounted for nearly 30% of all items increase. Rents jumped 4.6% from a year earlier.

If Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports, like lumber, take effect, Americans can expect continued price increases in the homebuilding sector. Supply and demand imbalances remain a key driver for higher prices, so fewer houses being built due to higher materials cost will likely lead to higher rents.

Consumers saw better news on new vehicle prices, which remained flat over the month and showed slight declines from a year ago.

This is even as demand for new cars increased 2.5% over 2024. In January 2025, the number of new vehicles sold topped the same month a year earlier for the fifth month in a row.

But as with homebuilding, any tariffs on the import of car parts or materials will impact the auto industry. Carmakers may have breathed an immediate breath of relief when Trump delayed new tariffs on Canada and Mexico. But if deals aren’t reached by the March 1 deadline, industry analysts expect immediate impacts on top sellers.

And any higher cost of new cars will have a knock-on effect on used cars, which saw prices jump 2.2% in January – it’s largest increase since May 2023.

Increased prices are no yoke! (groan)

Of course, not all inflationary pressures are in the purview of government.

The transportation sector, which includes insurance and parking fees, increased by 8% over the year. Insurance prices soared almost 12%, on the back of last year’s 20.6% increase in prices, while parking fees increased by almost 5% as a result of more expensive repairs and more dangerous driving behaviors.

Meanwhile, with bird flu continuing to spread, egg prices rose a shocking 15.2% in January, and are 53% more expensive than at this time last year.

All in all, voters who cited inflation as the main reason they were backing Trump may be feeling a little uneasy – the administration is only a few weeks old, but for one reason or other, Americans are experiencing ever higher prices with little relief in sight.The Conversation

Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post Inflation is heating up again, putting pressure on Trump to cool it on tariffs appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

How Valentine’s Day was transformed by the Industrial Revolution and ‘manufactured intimacy’

Published

8 hours ago

on

February 12, 2025

By

theconversation.com – Christopher Ferguson, Associate Professor of History, Auburn University – 2025-02-12 13:16:00

When we think of Valentine’s Day, chubby Cupids, hearts and roses generally come to mind, not industrial processes like mass production and the division of labor. Yet the latter were essential to the holiday’s history.

As a historian researching material culture and emotions, I’m aware of the important role the exchange of manufactured greeting cards played in the 19th-century version of Valentine’s Day.

At the beginning of that century, Britons produced most of their valentines by hand. By the 1850s, however, manufactured cards had replaced those previously made by individuals at home. By the 1860s, more than 1 million cards were in circulation in London alone.

The British journalist and playwright Andrew Halliday was fascinated by these cards, especially one popular card that featured a lady and gentleman walking arm-in-arm up a pathway toward a church.

Halliday recalled watching in fascination as “the windows of small booksellers and stationers” filled with “highly-coloured” valentines, and contemplating “how and where” they “originated.” “Who draws the pictures?” he wondered. “Who writes the poetry?”

In 1864 he decided to find out.

Manufactured intimacy

Today Halliday is most often remembered for his writing on London beggars in a groundbreaking 1864 social survey, “London Labour and the London Poor.” However, throughout the 1860s he was a regular contributor to Charles Dickens’ popular journal “All the Year Round,” in which he entertained readers with essays addressing various facets of ordinary British daily existence, including family relations, travel, public services and popular entertainments.

In one essay for that journal – “Cupid’s Manufactory,” which was later reprinted in 1866 in the collection “Everyday Papers” – Halliday led his readers on a guided tour of one of London’s foremost card manufacturers.

Inside the premises of “Cupid and Co.,” they followed a “valentine step by step” from a “plain sheet of paper” to “that neat white box in which it is packed, with others of its kind, to be sent out to the trade.”

Touring ‘Cupid’s Manufactory’

“Cupid and Co.” was most likely the firm of Joseph Mansell, a lace-paper and stationary company that manufactured large numbers of valentines between the 1840s and 1860s – and also just happened to occupy the same address as “Mr. Cupid’s” in London’s Red Lion Square.

The processes Halliday described, however, were common to many British card manufacturers in the 1860s, and exemplified many industrial practices first introduced during the late 18th century, including the subdivision of tasks and the employment of women and child laborers.

Halliday moved through the rooms of “Cupid’s Manufactory,” describing the variety of processes by which various styles of cards were made for a range of different people and price points.

He noted how the card with the lady and gentleman on the path to the church began as a simple stamped card, in black and white – identical to one preserved today in the collections of the London Museum – priced at one penny.

A portion of these cards, however, then went on to a room where a group of young women were arranged along a bench, each with a different color of “liquid water-colour at her elbow.” Using stencils, one painted the “pale brown” pathway, then handed it to the woman next to her, who painted the “gentleman’s blue coat,” who then handed it to the next, who painted the “salmon-coloured church,” and so forth. It was much like a similar group of female workers depicted making valentines in the “Illustrated London News” in the 1870s.

These colored cards, Halliday noted, would be sold for “sixpence to half-a-crown.” A portion of these, however, were then sent on to another room, where another group of young women glued on feathers, lace-paper, bits of silk or velvet, or even gold leaf, creating even more ornate cards sometimes sold for 5 shillings and above.

All told, Halliday witnessed “about sixty hands” – mostly young women, but also “men and boys,” who worked 10 hours a day in every season of the year, making cards for Valentine’s Day.

Yet, it was on the top floor of the business that Halliday encountered the people who arguably fascinated him the most: the six artists who designed all the cards, and the poets who provided their text – most of whom actually worked offsite.

Here were the men responsible for manufacturing the actual sentiments the cards conveyed – and in the mid-19th century these encompassed a far wider range of emotions than the cards produced by Hallmark and others in the 21st century.

A spectrum of ‘manufactured emotions’

Many Victorians mailed cards not only to those with whom they were in love, but also to those they disliked or wished to mock or abuse. A whole subgenre of cards existed to belittle the members of certain trades, like tailors or draper’s assistants, or people who dressed out of fashion.

A Valentine's Day card with a man kneeling in front of a woman seated on an armchair, hugging her, within a lace-paper frame.

A Valentine’s Day card produced sometime between 1860 and 1880.
© The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA

Cards were specifically designed for discouraging suitors and for poking fun of the old or the unattractive. While some of these cards likely were exchanged as jokes between friends, the consensus among scholars is that many were absolutely intended to be sent as cruel insults.

Furthermore, unlike in the present day, in the 19th century those who received a Valentine were expected to send one in return, which meant there were also cards to discourage future attentions, recommend patience, express thanks, proclaim mutual admiration, or affirm love’s effusions.

Halliday noted the poet employed by “Cupid’s” had recently finished the text for a mean-spirited comic valentine featuring a gentleman admiring himself in a mirror:

Looking at thyself within the glass,
You appear lost in admiration;
You deceive yourself, and think, alas!
You are a wonder of creation.

This same author, however, had earlier completed the opposite kind of text for the card Halliday had previously highlighted, featuring the “lady and gentleman churchward-bound”:

“The path before me gladly would I trace,
With one who’s dearest to my constant heart,
To yonder church, the holy sacred place,
Where I my vows of Love would fain impart;
And in sweet wedlock’s bonds unite with thee,
Oh, then, how blest my life would ever be!”

These were very different texts by the very same man. And Halliday assured his readers “Cupid’s laureate” had authored many others in every imaginable style and sentiment, all year long, for “twopence a line.”

Halliday showed how a stranger was manufacturing expressions of emotions for the use of other strangers who paid money for them. In fact, he assured his readers that in the lead up to Valentine’s Day “Cupid’s” was “turning out two hundred and fifty pounds’ worth of valentines a week,” and that his business was “yearly on the increase.”

Halliday found this dynamic – the process of mass producing cards for profit to help people express their authentic emotions – both fascinating and bizarre. It was a practice he thought seemed like it ought to be “beneath the dignity of the age.”

And yet it thrived among the earnest Victorians, and it thrives still. Indeed, it remains a core feature of the modern holiday of Valentine’s Day.

This year, like in so many others, I will stand at a display of greeting cards, with many other strangers, as we all try to find that one card designed by someone else, mass-produced for profit, that will convey our sincere personal feelings for our friends and loved ones.

Read More

The post How Valentine’s Day was transformed by the Industrial Revolution and ‘manufactured intimacy’ appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

The Conversation

In spite of anti-DEI pressures, top corporations continued to diversify in 2024: new research

Published

14 hours ago

on

February 12, 2025

By

theconversation.com – Richie Zweigenhaft, Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, Guilford College – 2025-02-12 07:52:00

In spite of anti-DEI pressures, top corporations continued to diversify in 2024: new research

Richie Zweigenhaft, Guilford College

Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning affirmative action in college admissions, and mounting pressure on corporations to eliminate their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the top 50 Fortune 500 companies continued to diversify their boards in 2024.

As a social psychologist, I’ve been tracking diversity on Fortune-level boards of directors for decades. And as I reported in The Conversation last year, 2023 marked the first time that fewer than half of the directors of top 50 Fortune 500 companies were white men. At the same time, increasing numbers of white women and Black, Asian and Hispanic people of all genders held board seats.

Looking at data from mid-December 2024, I found that the top 50 companies’ boards continued to become more diverse. However, as political and legal challenges to DEI intensify, future trends remain unclear.

Back and forth on DEI

After the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, many Fortune 1000 companies pledged to make new commitments to racial equity and implemented DEI programs to track and improve diversity. But in 2023 – presumably encouraged by the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision – anti-DEI activists ramped up the pressure on corporations to roll back these initiatives. In response, many big companies reduced or eliminated their diversity commitments.

But the DEI backlash didn’t show up in the 2024 data on corporate board membership.

Diversity on boards increased dramatically from 2011 to 2023, and the trend generally continued into 2024, with the number of seats held by Hispanic and Black people and white women all rising despite a slight dip in the number of seats held by Asian people. As a result, the share of seats held by white men fell from 49.7% to 48.4%, while the share held by everyone else rose from 50.3% to 51.6%.

Examining the data on Black, Hispanic and Asian board members by gender reveals some intriguing differences, though some variations may be due to small sample sizes. For the top 50 companies, the number of seats held by Black women rose by five, while the number of seats held by Black men fell by two. In contrast, two more seats were held by Asian men in 2024 than in 2023, but the number of seats held by Asian women dropped by three. The number of seats held by Latinos and Latinas also increased, by four and two, respectively.

So why did board-level diversity increase despite the DEI backlash? It could be because boards of directors change slowly. Most of the top 50 boards on the Fortune 500 list make no changes in a given year, and those that do typically replace only one or two people. In some cases, boards expand by adding new members without removing old ones, which can be a quick and easy way to increase diversity. As a result, the number of seats on the top 50 boards increased from 574 in 2023 to 593 as of mid-December 2024.

There are other indications that these boards are becoming more diverse than they were in the not-so-distant past. In 2023, four companies either had an equal number of men and women on their boards or more women than men. In 2024, that number had increased to seven.

Increasingly diverse chief executives

The number of CEOs of the top 50 companies who weren’t white men also rose, from 14 to 15. For most of 2024 the number was 16, but in October the board at CVS asked Karen Lynch, a white woman, to step down, and replaced her with a white man. At the end of 2024, the top 50 Fortune companies included seven white women, three Asian men, three Latinos, one Black male, and one Latina as CEOs.

Moreover, 12 of the top 50 CEOs, or 24%, were born outside the U.S., an indication that the country’s corporate elite is becoming more globally diverse than in the past.

Just as many of the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 companies were born and raised in other countries, so, too, were many of the Black, Hispanic, Asian and white female directors. In fact, almost all of the Asian chief executives were born outside the U.S., as well as most of the Hispanic CEOS. If corporate boards continue to grow in diversity – or even stay at the same level – they’ll probably draw heavily on men and women born and educated outside the country’s borders.

The data shows a slight uptick in diversity for the boards of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list from 2023 to 2024. But after his inauguration, Donald Trump immediately took on diversity efforts both in the federal government and the corporate world. As a print headline in The New York Times noted, “Trump’s Attack on DEI Stirs Fear at Corporations.”

The future of board diversity under Trump

In the weeks before Trump’s second inauguration, McDonald’s announced that it was retiring several leadership diversity goals, and Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta was terminating its DEI programs. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order terminating all DEI programs across the federal government and requiring the government to look at private sector DEI initiatives. Not long afterward, Google announced that it, too, was retreating from its DEI initiatives, making it clear that it was doing so because of Trump’s executive orders.

But a few of the top 50 companies, including Costco, Apple, Microsoft and JP Morgan, took public stands claiming that they were planning to continue their DEI policies. Costco’s stance drew special attention because, as The New York Times put it, the board’s views were “particularly forceful.” Within a week or so, 19 Republican state attorneys general called on the company to end the policies.

There is concern that the attacks on DEI will decrease diversity in the pipeline that leads to the executive suites of American corporations, and that this in turn will lead to less diversity in boardrooms. As Fortune’s Lily Mae Lazarus put it in late January, “The precedent set by the Trump administration could undo decades of progress that have allowed women and people of color to rise to the C-suite and boardroom.”

Whether the many attacks on DEI – first from right-wing bloggers, then from the Supreme Court, and then from the president – will affect the makeup of Fortune-level boards in 2025 and beyond remains to be seen.The Conversation

Richie Zweigenhaft, Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, Guilford College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The post In spite of anti-DEI pressures, top corporations continued to diversify in 2024: new research appeared first on theconversation.com

Continue Reading

Trending