College
Rowan-Virtua School of Osteopathic Medicine
Keywords
NIH funding, indirect cost cap, research efficiency, university budgets, equity in research, direct research funding
Date of Presentation
5-1-2025 12:00 AM
Poster Abstract
Background: On February 10, 2025, the NIH enacted a 15% cap on indirect costs, reallocating $4 billion from institutional overhead to direct research within a $35 billion funding framework. The policy follows longstanding concerns about unchecked growth and inefficiencies in indirect cost reimbursements, which rose from 15% in the 1950s to over 70% at some institutions by the 1990s. Notable examples include a $200 million overcharge at Stanford and millions in questionable expenditures identified in federal audits.
Objective: To evaluate the financial, operational, and equity-related impacts of the NIH’s indirect cost cap on U.S. research institutions.
Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 19 publicly available sources, including policy notices, institutional reports, and expert commentary from 1998–2025. Our focus included financial reallocations, operational responses, and stakeholder perspectives on infrastructure, transparency, and long-term sustainability.
Results: The cap reduces overhead spending from $9B to $5B, increasing available funds for direct research. While institutions like Harvard and MIT anticipate annual losses up to $140M and $100M respectively, they are buffered by large endowments. Smaller institutions, lacking such reserves, face disproportionate strain. Researchers welcome the increase in direct funding, though administrators warn of threats to compliance, safety, and laboratory continuity.
Conclusion: The NIH’s cap represents both a fiscal correction and a stress test for institutional resilience. While it targets wasteful spending, it also exposes gaps in the funding system that may disadvantage smaller research centers. Future reforms may benefit from tiered or performance-based caps that preserve efficiency gains while protecting research diversity.
Disciplines
Inequality and Stratification | Medicine and Health | Medicine and Health Sciences | Public Economics | Science and Technology Policy
Included in
Inequality and Stratification Commons, Medicine and Health Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Public Economics Commons, Science and Technology Policy Commons
Indirect Cost Cap: Perspectives on Efficiency, Waste, and Equity
Background: On February 10, 2025, the NIH enacted a 15% cap on indirect costs, reallocating $4 billion from institutional overhead to direct research within a $35 billion funding framework. The policy follows longstanding concerns about unchecked growth and inefficiencies in indirect cost reimbursements, which rose from 15% in the 1950s to over 70% at some institutions by the 1990s. Notable examples include a $200 million overcharge at Stanford and millions in questionable expenditures identified in federal audits.
Objective: To evaluate the financial, operational, and equity-related impacts of the NIH’s indirect cost cap on U.S. research institutions.
Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of 19 publicly available sources, including policy notices, institutional reports, and expert commentary from 1998–2025. Our focus included financial reallocations, operational responses, and stakeholder perspectives on infrastructure, transparency, and long-term sustainability.
Results: The cap reduces overhead spending from $9B to $5B, increasing available funds for direct research. While institutions like Harvard and MIT anticipate annual losses up to $140M and $100M respectively, they are buffered by large endowments. Smaller institutions, lacking such reserves, face disproportionate strain. Researchers welcome the increase in direct funding, though administrators warn of threats to compliance, safety, and laboratory continuity.
Conclusion: The NIH’s cap represents both a fiscal correction and a stress test for institutional resilience. While it targets wasteful spending, it also exposes gaps in the funding system that may disadvantage smaller research centers. Future reforms may benefit from tiered or performance-based caps that preserve efficiency gains while protecting research diversity.
