|
Message from The Addiction Science Defense Network organizers:
Tom Babor, Cassie Boness, Denni Fishbein, John Sweat Our mission is to strengthen cooperation among professional societies and civil society organizations by sharing information, advancing policies to prevent and reduce harm, and working with policy makers to ensure that addiction research, prevention and treatment programs receive adequate federal support, guidance and funding. An editorial (Safeguarding biomedical science Cell.pdf) was just published in the journal Cell that describes the more general threat to American science from the proposed reduction in indirect cost rates that come with NIH grants. It also contains a request for individuals to sign a “Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068).” The goal is to reach 15,000 signatures.
Link to Petition: The IssuePetition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068) As scientists, researchers, educators, and medical professionals, we stand in unified opposition to the recent NIH policy change (NOT-OD-25-068), which caps indirect cost reimbursement for grants at 15%. This drastic reduction threatens the very foundation of scientific research, technology innovation, healthcare advancements, and education in the United States. Why This Matters: o Hinder the recruitment and retention of top scientific talent o Delay or derail critical infrastructure investments o Increase administrative burdens on researchers o Weaken the U.S.’s global leadership in scientific research, technology innovation, and cutting-edge medical advancements Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates have been Carefully Reviewed for each Institution Institutions negotiate their indirect cost rates with a federal agency through a detailed review of expenses related to research infrastructure, administration, and compliance. This process involves: 1. Cost Proposal – Institutions submit data on past and projected research-related expenses to the federal agency. 2. Federal Review – The assigned agency audits and assesses the proposal for reasonableness and compliance with federal guidelines. 3. Negotiation – Institutions and the government determine a fair rate based on financial data, peer comparisons, and budget constraints. 4. Agreement & Implementation – Once finalized, the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) sets the allowable rate for a multi-year period. This process ensures institutions receive adequate and fair reimbursement for the essential infrastructure that enables cutting-edge research and innovation. This process is conducted with rigorous federal oversight, ensuring that rates reflect the actual costs necessary to support research–not an unfair siphoning of funds by the institutions, but a vital investment in sustaining scientific, academic, and medical advancement in the United States. Call to Action for Lawmakers, Policymakers, and NIH Leadership: We urge lawmakers, policymakers, and NIH leadership to take immediate action to reverse this damaging policy change and ensure the continued strength of the U.S. research enterprise. Specifically, we call on: o Congress to intervene and prevent the implementation of this cap, recognizing the devastating impact it will have on scientific progress, medical advancements, and U.S. global competitiveness. o The White House and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reconsider and rescind this policy in consultation with the research community to prevent long-term harm to federally funded science. o NIH Leadership to advocate within the administration for sustainable funding models that protect the integrity of the research infrastructure and the ability of institutions to carry out their mission effectively. o Federal Agencies and Science Advisors to work collaboratively with research institutions, professional societies, and industry leaders to ensure that policies support, rather than undermine, the nation's investment in scientific innovation. We urge all decision-makers to recognize that indirect cost rates are thoughtfully negotiated and scrutinized to reflect the real costs of research. These funds are essential to maintaining world-class laboratories, supporting compliance and administration, fostering the next generation of scientific leaders, and keeping the United States at the forefront of technology innovation and medical advancements. The proposed cap would dismantle the very foundation that has enabled decades of groundbreaking discoveries, and we call on those in power to take swift action to prevent irreversible damage. Our Call to Action for the Research Community: We urge the NIH to immediately reverse this policy to prevent irreparable damage to the research ecosystem. To advocate for this, we commit to: o Uniting institutions in a coordinated effort to challenge this decision o Collaborating with key stakeholders in biotech, pharma, and venture capital to highlight the essential role of NIH funding, including indirect costs, in driving innovation and industry success. o Engaging major foundations and philanthropists to discuss sustainable strategies for covering the true costs of research. o Issuing public statements to NIH and policymakers expressing our concerns o Collaborating with legislators to explain the impact and highlight the risks this poses to research, education, and healthcare o Encouraging national advocacy through petitions like this, media engagement, and public forums The strength of our collective voice can and must influence change. We invite all members of the scientific and medical communities, educators, and citizens to sign this petition and join us in defending the future of science in the United States. IBANGS Member Community Engagement examples: |