A federal judge temporarily halted the Trump administration’s fundamental changes in how the NIH pays for biomedical research and developed a plan to cut federal funding for research.
State Attorney General filed a lawsuit on Monday Oppose the program, which will limit the way it pays “indirect costs” to universities and research institutions.
The lawsuit lists the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services as defendants, and he said the impact of the change indirect rate announced Friday would be “direct and devastating.”
NIH announced on Friday that it will limit indirect funding for research projects to 15%dramatically cut funding that the federal government will provide to research institutions to provide funding for things like equipment, maintenance, utilities and support staff. Previously, such rates vary and were negotiated by each agency with the government. The new policy takes effect on Monday Any new fees for all new NIH grants and existing grants.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts and was led by attorneys in Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan, claims that the NIH violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets out the process for how federal agencies develop and enact new regulations . It also claims that the administration has ignored Congress’ will, which includes a provision designed to prevent changes in indirect cost rates since 2018 and President Donald Trump’s first administration since 2018.
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley approved the attorney general’s request for a temporary restraining order, ordering agencies not to take any steps to enforce, apply, or enforce the new policy. Kelley held a face-to-face hearing on February 21.
Every country has Democrats who serve as attorney general are part of the lawsuit.
“The agency’s actions will lead to layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs and closure of laboratories,” the lawsuit said. “NIH’s extraordinary attempt to undermine all existing and future grants not only the country’s research foundation The facility poses a direct threat and will also have a lasting impact on its research capabilities and its ability to provide life-saving breakthroughs in scientific research.”
The National Institutes of Health directed NBC News to request comment to the Department of Health and Human Services, which was not commented on.
Scientists describe the cuts in indirect costs as harsh, which almost certainly hinders research on disease and basic sciences, which could lead to new discoveries.
“This will have a negative impact on research. If you don’t want to do research, you can do that.”
Limiting indirect costs could shift the burden of funding research from the federal government and universities and individual research institutions, and many say they don’t have the funds to support it.
In a press release, the University of California System said that NIH was the largest funder of its research, which spent $2.6 billion on research in the last school year. Changes in NIH will cut hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the University of California budget.
“This unwise action will immediately lead to a widespread reduction in personnel and services, including the impact on education, training, delivery of care to patients, basic research and clinical trials,” said Theresa Maldonado, vice president of research at the University of California. Innovation. “In long periods of basic research and clinical research, this will be destructive to long-term disruption of time-sensitive work.”
Supporters of NIH shifts describe indirect costs as out-of-control overhead.
exist Friday post on XKatie Miller, appointee of the newly formed government efficiency division, wrote: “President Trump is canceling liberal Dei Deans’ mud fund. This cuts Harvard University An outbreak price of about $250 million a year.”
