396
PhD moron asks why no one is talking about NIH cuts
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
396 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6562 readers
57 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In all honesty though, 60%+ overheads from a university is incredibly high. To an extent that shows that there is a large amount of management and administrative staff not contributing directly to the work. I'm not in medicine, but in the EU projects I'm in only 0-25% of overheads are funded. Though, I can imagine medicine requiring more than the hard sciences.
Leases would show as zero on the balance sheet if the government owned their own buildings. But of course someone decided that was "against the free market" so now the government cannot own anything in the name of "efficiency"
I’m under the impression that the cuts are from ~30% to ~15%
60% makes sense when you consider something like LIGO, or other real-estate heavy physics experimentation grounds, like a neutrino detector.