The University of Rochester and 12 other universities are suing the Trump administration seeking to block cuts to medical research.
The National Institutes of Health announced a policy last week capping indirect costs associated with grant funding at 15%. Previously, those costs — which go toward things like building maintenance and administrative salaries — varied, averaging around 28% over time, according to the NIH. The University of Rochester was reimbursed at a rate of 54%, according to their website.
University President Sarah C Mangelsdorf released a statement on Wednesday to the university community, decrying the cuts as detrimental to their research, which she said helps advance knowledge in science, medicine, and defense.
"Because research that may lead to future applications has become more costly over recent decades, the role of nonprofit research institutions has become more important in advancing science," she said. "Universities like ours are well placed to bring to bear the necessary talent and teams that can explore ideas in depth and over longer periods of time, regardless of immediate expectations of profit or potential investment opportunities."
In the lawsuit the University of Rochester contends it could lose up to $40 million in funding for this fiscal year.
The Association of American Universities and its members filed the lawsuit Monday in Massachusetts District Court, naming the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH. Cornell also is listed as a plaintiff.
“While we welcome a thoughtful process of evaluation of indirect costs,” Cornell interim President Michael I. Kotlikoff said, “if the research capabilities of America’s universities are destabilized and undermined in this way, no institutions will be capable of filling the void of discovery and innovation as a public good.”
Kotlikoff’s statement was posted to the university’s website.
The lawsuit alleges that NIH can't make these sweeping changes without congressional approval.
This is one of three lawsuits filed to block the change.
The policy was supposed to go into effect on Feb. 10, but a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order to block the cuts.
The judge has scheduled in-person hearings for this and another lawsuit later this month.
This is the full statement released by the University of Rochester:
Dear Members of the University Community,
Early this week, the University of Rochester joined the Association of American Universities (AAU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and 12 of our peer research institutions in asking a federal court to block the sudden implementation of the NIH’s plan to place a 15% cap on what are known as Facilities and Administrative (“F&A”) costs affecting our research endeavor. Such a limit would replace grant terms that are negotiated by each institution according to its costs. In seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction to prevent arbitrary adjustments, we took actions like those pursued by the Attorney General of New York and 21 other states—home to public and private research universities throughout the country—as well as the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and other higher education organizations.
As of late Monday, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ordered the NIH to refrain from putting the cap in place in response to the AAMC suit. My leadership team and I are grateful that research universities and academic medical centers will have a chance to articulate why such a draconian limit on our research funding is detrimental to the future health of all Americans, destabilizes the economic and technological innovation of the country, and puts in jeopardy the nation’s position as the scientific and clinical research leader of the world.
Since World War II, universities like Rochester—and our public and private peers across the country—have been tasked with serving as the research engines of the nation’s economy. The United States, through federal agencies like the NIH, NSF, Department of Defense, and others, has relied on universities to advance knowledge in the public interest that can be translated to new treatments and cures, new technologies and scientific breakthroughs, and to develop an educated workforce. Because research that may lead to future applications has become more costly over recent decades, the role of nonprofit research institutions has become more important in advancing science. Universities like ours are well placed to bring to bear the necessary talent and teams that can explore ideas in depth and over longer periods of time, regardless of immediate expectations of profit or potential investment opportunities.
The US model is based on the understanding that conducting pathbreaking research takes place within the context of an advanced infrastructure and among well-educated professionals. The idea of “F&A costs” (also known as “indirect costs”) was established to help cover the expenses of such modern, research-focused workplaces. Those costs include the construction and maintenance of laboratories and other facilities, personnel, scientific research equipment, the record-keeping needed to ensure that we are compliant with federal regulations, including human subject safety and other mandated areas, insurance costs, and operational expenses for computing resources, telecommunications, libraries, and other shared resources.
The US model is also designed to ensure that all funded costs associated with our research endeavor are clearly stipulated, held within agreed-to limits by the federal agency that awards the grants, and are audited regularly. In fact, last fall, a team from the NIH was on campus conducting such a review and notified us last week of a well-reasoned, modest reduction to our average reimbursement rate, just one day before the national announcement slashing rates for all institutions. We continuously look for efficiency improvements and cost-saving opportunities while investing in endeavors that are consistent with our mission.
Despite that model for managing costs, the NIH announced the cap last Friday without warning or consultation and in disregard to our NIH-approved and negotiated grant terms. We estimate that if the 15% cap remains in place, the cost to the University will be at least $40 million a year, which will have serious ramifications on the University’s finances. We also expect that other research-funding agencies may follow the NIH in establishing such a cap, further eroding our research budget and potentially crippling our position as a research university.
While I understand that this situation will take a while to play out, both in the courts and at the federal level, I want everyone to know that we will make every effort possible to ensure that we remain a leading research institution, one that will build on our 175-year legacy well into the future. We know that we have incredible support from a wide swath of the civic, business, educational, and political leaders, and we will continue to work closely with our colleagues and partners.
We will do our best to keep the community informed as the situation unfolds. In the meantime, thank you all for your outstanding work, your engagement, and your belief in Meliora.
Sarah C Mangelsdorf
President and G. Robert Witmer, Jr. University Professor
