The 2022 report provides an examination of 82 universities, detailing the indirect cost rates allocated to them from federal grants, as well as those they receive from private funding organizations such as the Sloan Foundation, Gates Foundation, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Out of the institutions analyzed by the Heritage Foundation, ten did not validate their indirect cost rates from private funders, resulting in a full analysis of 72 universities.
Among these 72 universities, the findings indicated that 67 universities accepted private research grants without any indirect research cost coverage—mirroring the findings noted in the NIH notice.
Have Information?
If you are a current or former employee of the NIH, or a scientist affected by this administration, we’d like to hear your story. Please use a personal phone or computer to contact our reporters securely on Signal at mattreynolds.45 and emullin.06.
According to the Heritage Foundation report, only three universities in the analysis declined to accept indirect cost rates from private foundations at rates lower than those negotiated with federal entities. These universities are the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Michigan.
The NIH notice references these three institutions without crediting the Heritage Foundation as the source of the information. It specifies that Harvard insisted on a minimum 15 percent indirect cost coverage from private funders, while the California Institute of Technology required a 20 percent coverage rate. These instances are also mentioned in the Heritage Foundation report.
One of the contributors to the report, Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, stated that he was not involved in the writing of the NIH notice but acknowledged that one paragraph in the notice “does seem to reference our 2022 report.” The NIH has not responded to WIRED’s inquiry for comments.
A proposal to reduce indirect cost rates in federal grants is also part of Project 2025, a nearly thousand-page policy guide from the Heritage Foundation aimed at a second Trump administration. “This market-driven reform is intended to decrease federal taxpayer support for leftist agendas,” the report claims. During his campaign, Trump consistently distanced himself from both the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025.
Recently, a coalition of 22 states has initiated a lawsuit disputing the legality of the NIH’s efforts to lower indirect costs.
Universities have expressed concerns that the cap will hinder their essential research efforts. “The advancement of new therapies would slow, opportunities to cultivate the next generation of scientific leaders would diminish, and the nation’s science and engineering capabilities would be significantly compromised,” stated Harvard president Alan Garber on the university’s website.
Some institutions could face over $100 million in losses in federal funding if the proposed grant cap remains. As reported by STAT, Weill Cornell Medicine generated $107 million in indirect costs in 2022—an amount that would plummet to $23 million with a 15 percent rate.
