On February 7, 2025, in accordance with the Trump Administration’s mandate to eliminate waste in federal spending, the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) announced it was capping “indirect costs” on federal research grants at 15%. In addition, a number of research projects, both current and future were terminated.

Indirect costs are used to cover research expenses such as equipment and facilities maintenance, IT services, and administrative support. Indirect costs are itemized separately from direct research costs and are often expressed as a percentage. For example, an indirect cost rate of 50% means that for every dollar awarded as part of a research grant for eligible direct costs, the institution would receive an additional 50 cents to cover indirect costs.

But indirect costs are also used to fund another very important aspect of research.

Every university-based study has to go through a rigorous ethics process. All animal studies go through IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee). All human studies through an IRB (Institutional Review Board.)

Not only are studies submitted for a full ethics board review at the beginning of the study, but they must be renewed every year and any deviation from protocol, adverse event or other unforeseen result must be resubmitted and reviewed by the board. These committees include faculty members who receive a minimal salary for their time and include lay members from the community (who are also remunerated).

The review involves a substantial amount of work and basically ensures that animals used in research are being treated humanely and that people are (being treated like animals?). No, that people are treated ethically. The documentation and regulatory aspects are so complex that many universities now have a Regulatory and Compliance Officer to assist in the tracking of all aspects of these research grants.

Without the IRB and IACUC there can be no research. If the university administration decides to “break” the current indirect system, the ethics structures would also break, and this would be another way in which research would screech to a halt.

So, the question must be asked, how did we get here?

In 2023 the NIH invested $35 billion in research through 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities/research institutions. Of the $35 billion, $26 billion was for the ‘direct cost’ of the research and $9 billion (26%) was for indirect costs.

In its February 7, 2025, announcement, the NIH said its 15% cap on indirect cost could save $4 billion annually. On the surface, this cap may seem reasonable.  

So, why is the 15% cap causing such turmoil in academia?

First, it came from the Trump Administration. Since many people in academia look upon President Trump as evil, or the anti-Christ, or a Fascist or Hitler incarnate, they look upon anything he does as bad for the Republic.

Undoubtedly part of the angst was also caused by the heavy-handed manner in which the announcement was made, and the cuts implemented. Giving universities only one weekend to absorb the news, conduct meetings and conferences, and undertake a search to locate and receive other sources of funding is patently unreasonable. Budgets had been set, scholarships and employment for university professionals had been scheduled in part based on the indirect grant costs. To presume that universities could undertake all actions necessary to continue research projects in the span of 48 hours is unrealistic.

But there are two sides to a coin and two edges to every sword.

So, why did this happen?

Some pundits speculate that DEI is the underlying culprit. And the heavy-handed manner in which DEI has been foisted upon the American public.

DEI is an incredibly nuanced, complex, multi-faceted topic. At its core, it attempts to address the manner in which we, as a just and fair society can and must stride forward into a bold future. A future filled with hope for all. When properly implemented, DEI provides greater opportunities for those who have been traditionally overlooked.

Microsoft created a neurodiversity hiring program targeting individuals with autism and other neurological differences.

Johnson & Johnson invested in a supplier diversity program to support owned by minorities, veterans and people with disabilities.

When implemented by diverse, intelligent persons from both ends of the political spectrum, DEI can be intelligently utilized to provide greater opportunities. That requires collaboration by people of differing opinions and backgrounds.

That is one of the ways where Academia fails.

Academia pushes an identity-based approach to DEI encouraging people to define themselves by race, gender and victimhood rather than by merit and responsibility. This mindset focuses on resentment instead of ambition.

Regarding DEI and equality, Academia and liberals tend to focus on equality of outcome (does everyone have the same things?).

Corporations and conservatives tend to focus on equality of opportunity (is everyone treated the same?).

The undeniable reality is that on its surface and as utilized by Academia, DEI is fundamentally discriminatory. DEI asserts that representation must be based on an end product or result evidencing broad based inclusion regardless of merit. This attempts to address the horrific scourge of past discrimination by engaging in horrific acts of future discrimination.

Under the Biden Administration, DEI and research grants flourished.

However, a society which distorts history is not advancing. It is regressing. One of the great failures of multiculturalism is its rejection of assimilation. The process by which different cultures blend into a shared identity rather than remaining separate factions. We must focus on merit and opportunity. Not grievance.

So, what must be done now? 

The old system of applying for and pursuing grants is over. Quite frankly, it should be. The eating disorder research community has suffered far too long at the hands of a radical element which places their social justice and political views over families. Those people who have ignored and derided the medical community in order to showcase their own dysfunctions and inner turmoil.

Tragically, it is now the university research professionals who are paying the price for this ignorance as their research funding has been reduced or eliminated.

In the short term, there is not much the university-based research professionals can do.  Except pray that the various pending lawsuits result in favorable outcomes.

Certainly, GoFundMe accounts are not the answer. Unless hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed through GoFundMe accounts, those GoFundMe efforts approach questionable ethical boundaries. A few thousand dollars will do nothing to replace the lost funding.  They are symbolic at best.

But the long term?

First universities and researchers must have a greater understanding of the possible return of investment for grants. Universities must become more like the private sector.  They must have vision as to how research is applicable to the understanding and treatment of illnesses in the real world. Not social justice issues. Not radical political issues.

As such, universities must mandate that the focus of research be applied to medically based, science supported issues. A commonly cited factor for NIH allocation decisions is scientific opportunity. Universities and institutes are typically looking for the best and most innovative research.

However, an important question is whether research on the same diseases remains on the forefront of discovery for many years. It is difficult to accept, given the constancy of funding across diseases, that the relative likelihood of scientific breakthroughs varies in the same way across diseases now as it did 10 or even 20 years earlier.

Disease-specific advocacy also plays an important role in NIH funding. Although advocates’ success in garnering congressional support for research can lead to higher overall NIH budgets, most advocacy groups focus on specific diseases. Some of the extra funding that certain diseases obtain could be the result of these efforts.

This means that medical and scientific aspects of an illness must be emphasized and placed at the forefront of a study. Research which involves social justice issues or denying science not only will not get funded, but they cause harm to the community.

Private foundations and large corporations want to know exactly how your research study will improve the lives of their employees or the people their foundation supports.

University professionals must determine the manner in which emerging technologies and synthetically created intelligence platforms will become involved in the subject about which their research addresses. Ai is not just here to stay, but it is growing and learning at an alarming rate. If a researcher does not have a firm grasp on emerging creations and technologies and how that impacts his/her study … they are wasting their time.

Universities can partner with research and development liaison organizations. Those organizations can find suitable collaborative outside entities who will invest money to cover in part, those indirect costs. A failure to do will result in overall failure.

For that matter, there are a number of private equity companies and a few publicly traded companies which own hundreds of mental health treatment centers across the United States. These entities have literally billions of dollars of assets and resources at their disposal. Imagine the epic advances and increased knowledge of eating disorders, including state of the art treatment protocols which could be discovered and implemented through … collaboration. This type of collaborative effort would not only lead to breakthroughs in treatment resulting in a legion of lives being saved, but as another benefit, would result in increased profits for those companies.

There are solutions. Ready solutions. However, finding the right solution can be difficult and confusing.

In order to discover a brave new world, we must embrace strength, resolve, intelligence, collaboration and faith. Without those qualities, we will remain lost. And knowledge and advancement will be stifled.