Why would Trump have a pro-Putin agenda? He contributed to a proxy war (using Javelins) and has been trying to freeze the conflict, and get the EU to take it over, not end it.
Putin has something on him, encouraging him to destroy the US government, its alliances, and its economy, as well as it's future by attacking universities and renewable energy and it's rule of law, let alone the role of the dollar. only a Purin-favoring mandate explains all these things clearly.
Or the people who have been controlling policy, right and left, for decades ie US based interests such as big oil and big arms, who start wars they can’t win, blame Russia or China, trash renewables, attack those pointing out the evidence behind anthropogenic climate change (they spend $trillons on climate crisis denial on social media and it’s all but disappeared as it accelerates from MSM), create high prices and unrest to sell a war with China, take control of Panama and Greenland to choke China’s trade routes, isolate themselves with tariffs as they know the climate crisis will hit the global south’s ability to grow food first. Blaming Trump (or the City of London) deflects from these cartels who constantly point out that China is the enemy (of US primacy) and that the proxy war with Russia and in the Middle East are just the warm up. Best to know one’s enemy (within).
I support DOE funded research. 50-70% overhead DOES seem a bit high. Many organizations limit the amount of overhead allowed in grants (it's often LOWER than 15% in conservation). Please offer some suggestions for ways overhead costs could be reduced going forward. I think putting a good faith effort into reducing overhead costs is also important. People will note that and support your work. Thanks!
The overhead rate is a negotiated rate that reflects the expenses that the university incurs. I understand that it might sound high, but doing research is expensive.
It is true that philanthropic foundations often cap their overhead at 10 or 15%. However, universities lose money on that research. They accept it because it is prestigious and makes them look good. But you cannot run a research univ. like that. It will go out of business.
So, if your position is defensible, than I would encourage you to be transparent and make it more commonly known by the public that these are standard and acceptable levels of overhead ("and here's why.."). If you need public support for these higher overhead rates, than transparency is key. You need to educate people that this is necessary and NOT excessive, otherwise, they don't know and can't support you, because when you say 50-70% overhead to a lay person not working in university research, it sounds very high. Just a thought. I am grateful for your work and blog, Andrew! And I fully agree that the result of this policy will benefit China and other competitors.
50% overhead is still 2 out of every 3 dollars going directly to research. That’s a lot better than, say, consulting/contracting in the private sector where you might even see the fractions reversed when everything is considered.
I would actually say that more than 2 out of every 3 dollars is going to research. A lot of the overhead is for things that we need for research, like journal subscriptions for libraries, Wi-Fi, and support for purchasing. University research is actually quite a lean operation. There's no incentive to waste money since every dollar wasted is a dollar that can't be used for research.
Your sentence sounds like a plea for wishful thinking. We apply 100% overhead for the tech services we contract for , and we're a not for profit so add no additional margin.
Academia is weighed down by a systemic, inflexible bloat that has hardened into entrenched inefficiency. Unlike sectors shaped by market pressures, where organizations adapt, dissolve, and reinvent themselves all the time, academia resists change. It is the antithesis of the lean and agile approach that everyone else adopts as a requirement to exist.
I'm retired, but I did work at a research university and we did try that entrepreneurial approach that JAM mentions and it simply doesn't work out in actual practice. I won't go into the gory details but a good summary is that it sets the institution to fighting within itself and outside funding bodies. In the long term, the students suffer the most..
Good research organizations, whether academic or other, do exactly as you write: adapt, dissolve, reinvent. That’s how cross-disciplinary fields come into being, and they are enormously productive. Have you ever done scientific research?
JAM: *Unlike sectors shaped by market pressures, where organizations adapt, dissolve, and reinvent themselves all the time, academia resists change.*
Wow. Your otherwise purely rhetorical declaration is barely redeemed by a measure of accidental truth. You've just described why basic research into verifiable natural phenomena, conducted without expectation of private profit, is a *public good*. Look it up.
It should be apparent I agree with Prof. Dessler here. I don't know what drives your harsh judgement, but I'm guessing you've had neither the training nor the peer discipline he has. Science only works by rigorous training not to fool yourself, when performing exploratory research under the close scrutiny and competitive skepticism of equally trained and disciplined peers, who are determined not to let you get away with fooling yourself (whoo, boy)! Anyone can participate if they're willing to put the time in, and submit to the training and peer discipline. I wasn't, having dropped out of a PhD program when I decided I didn't want to work that hard for a living. I then spent 30 years providing IT support to investigators in federally-funded science laboratories. From my perspective, you're grievously ill-informed.
BTW: *academia*, by which I presume you mean the international, collective enterprise of professional peer-reviewed science, has its own centuries-old culture that changes continuously under both internal and external forces: look it up. Although some change is inevitable, and may be socially meliorative, IMHO scientific culture must resist any change that undermines its epistemological authority, even as its body of verified, self-correcting knowledge continues to accumulate. In that sense, it's the only genuinely progressive institution human culture has evolved. Of course it's not perfect, for "out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made" (I. Kant). Yet as science's returns for humanity to date make clear, it's the only tool for the purpose that's demonstrably more successful than haruspicy. It's expensive, but since it doesn't promise immediate payoffs for private investors, funding is left to government. Done fearlessly, it may verify inconvenient truths some might wish to deny. It's hard to justify the investment to those unacquainted with its foundations. Its net value over time to individual people including yourself, however, can be seen all around you!
relax. academia and science are not the same. Academia refers to an institutional framework. The failure to recognize the distinction signals an entrenchment of existing structures. There is more than one way to fry an egg. If you're going to have trouble covering the cost of WiFi installation using grants then maybe a new model of capital investment is warranted. The path dependency of existing capital allocation through public grants is probably why researchers are so stressed out, and increasingly distracted from their core compentencies. Maybe the era of capital lock-in, bureaucratic bloat, and institutional rigidity is over. Unsustainable dusty old frameworks must adapt or they will perish altogether in obsolescence. This is common wisdom in most sectors.
Ah. Stripping off the rhetorical overburden, I think I see your point:
"Unsustainable dusty old frameworks must adapt or they will perish altogether in obsolescence. This is common wisdom in most sectors."
It's probably common because it's tautological! That said, I'm open to suggestions on just how, specifically, institutional frameworks must adapt so that science can fulfill its raison d'être, including the training of younger generations of curiosity-driven scientists, without sacrificing its privileged authority.
A couple other points on research: Much of the research grant goes to fund a graduate student or two--tuition plus nominally 20 hours per week working on the grant. In my own case, student funding was 1/4 to 1/2 of the direct costs of the research. Incidentally, tuition is excluded from the indirect charge.
In addition, research grants are the almost exclusive way that students get their hands on state-of-the-art research tools.
The toilet paper and elevator maintenance is easily in the 15%. Costs of hardware to execute the project are part of the grant request. Change is hard for humans, i get it. Not a well researched post.
15% might cover maintenance and the grant might cover equipment…but what is going to cover the actual construction of buildings, labs, and offices? You’re going to need a lot more than 15% to cover that unless you expect each grant to be a construction project with a little research on the side.
Just part of Trump's program to degrade America's strengths in support of his pro-Putin agenda.
Why would Trump have a pro-Putin agenda? He contributed to a proxy war (using Javelins) and has been trying to freeze the conflict, and get the EU to take it over, not end it.
Putin has something on him, encouraging him to destroy the US government, its alliances, and its economy, as well as it's future by attacking universities and renewable energy and it's rule of law, let alone the role of the dollar. only a Purin-favoring mandate explains all these things clearly.
Or the people who have been controlling policy, right and left, for decades ie US based interests such as big oil and big arms, who start wars they can’t win, blame Russia or China, trash renewables, attack those pointing out the evidence behind anthropogenic climate change (they spend $trillons on climate crisis denial on social media and it’s all but disappeared as it accelerates from MSM), create high prices and unrest to sell a war with China, take control of Panama and Greenland to choke China’s trade routes, isolate themselves with tariffs as they know the climate crisis will hit the global south’s ability to grow food first. Blaming Trump (or the City of London) deflects from these cartels who constantly point out that China is the enemy (of US primacy) and that the proxy war with Russia and in the Middle East are just the warm up. Best to know one’s enemy (within).
Ember energy has called attention to some important milestones including the fact that clean energy produced more U.S. electricity than fossil fuels in March, https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/fossil-fuels-fall-below-50-of-us-electricity-for-the-first-month-on-record/
These are the type of clean energy milestones that need to get more press!
I support DOE funded research. 50-70% overhead DOES seem a bit high. Many organizations limit the amount of overhead allowed in grants (it's often LOWER than 15% in conservation). Please offer some suggestions for ways overhead costs could be reduced going forward. I think putting a good faith effort into reducing overhead costs is also important. People will note that and support your work. Thanks!
The overhead rate is a negotiated rate that reflects the expenses that the university incurs. I understand that it might sound high, but doing research is expensive.
It is true that philanthropic foundations often cap their overhead at 10 or 15%. However, universities lose money on that research. They accept it because it is prestigious and makes them look good. But you cannot run a research univ. like that. It will go out of business.
So, if your position is defensible, than I would encourage you to be transparent and make it more commonly known by the public that these are standard and acceptable levels of overhead ("and here's why.."). If you need public support for these higher overhead rates, than transparency is key. You need to educate people that this is necessary and NOT excessive, otherwise, they don't know and can't support you, because when you say 50-70% overhead to a lay person not working in university research, it sounds very high. Just a thought. I am grateful for your work and blog, Andrew! And I fully agree that the result of this policy will benefit China and other competitors.
50% overhead is still 2 out of every 3 dollars going directly to research. That’s a lot better than, say, consulting/contracting in the private sector where you might even see the fractions reversed when everything is considered.
I would actually say that more than 2 out of every 3 dollars is going to research. A lot of the overhead is for things that we need for research, like journal subscriptions for libraries, Wi-Fi, and support for purchasing. University research is actually quite a lean operation. There's no incentive to waste money since every dollar wasted is a dollar that can't be used for research.
Your sentence sounds like a plea for wishful thinking. We apply 100% overhead for the tech services we contract for , and we're a not for profit so add no additional margin.
Academia is weighed down by a systemic, inflexible bloat that has hardened into entrenched inefficiency. Unlike sectors shaped by market pressures, where organizations adapt, dissolve, and reinvent themselves all the time, academia resists change. It is the antithesis of the lean and agile approach that everyone else adopts as a requirement to exist.
do you work at a Univ.?
I'm retired, but I did work at a research university and we did try that entrepreneurial approach that JAM mentions and it simply doesn't work out in actual practice. I won't go into the gory details but a good summary is that it sets the institution to fighting within itself and outside funding bodies. In the long term, the students suffer the most..
Good research organizations, whether academic or other, do exactly as you write: adapt, dissolve, reinvent. That’s how cross-disciplinary fields come into being, and they are enormously productive. Have you ever done scientific research?
JAM: *Unlike sectors shaped by market pressures, where organizations adapt, dissolve, and reinvent themselves all the time, academia resists change.*
Wow. Your otherwise purely rhetorical declaration is barely redeemed by a measure of accidental truth. You've just described why basic research into verifiable natural phenomena, conducted without expectation of private profit, is a *public good*. Look it up.
It should be apparent I agree with Prof. Dessler here. I don't know what drives your harsh judgement, but I'm guessing you've had neither the training nor the peer discipline he has. Science only works by rigorous training not to fool yourself, when performing exploratory research under the close scrutiny and competitive skepticism of equally trained and disciplined peers, who are determined not to let you get away with fooling yourself (whoo, boy)! Anyone can participate if they're willing to put the time in, and submit to the training and peer discipline. I wasn't, having dropped out of a PhD program when I decided I didn't want to work that hard for a living. I then spent 30 years providing IT support to investigators in federally-funded science laboratories. From my perspective, you're grievously ill-informed.
BTW: *academia*, by which I presume you mean the international, collective enterprise of professional peer-reviewed science, has its own centuries-old culture that changes continuously under both internal and external forces: look it up. Although some change is inevitable, and may be socially meliorative, IMHO scientific culture must resist any change that undermines its epistemological authority, even as its body of verified, self-correcting knowledge continues to accumulate. In that sense, it's the only genuinely progressive institution human culture has evolved. Of course it's not perfect, for "out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made" (I. Kant). Yet as science's returns for humanity to date make clear, it's the only tool for the purpose that's demonstrably more successful than haruspicy. It's expensive, but since it doesn't promise immediate payoffs for private investors, funding is left to government. Done fearlessly, it may verify inconvenient truths some might wish to deny. It's hard to justify the investment to those unacquainted with its foundations. Its net value over time to individual people including yourself, however, can be seen all around you!
relax. academia and science are not the same. Academia refers to an institutional framework. The failure to recognize the distinction signals an entrenchment of existing structures. There is more than one way to fry an egg. If you're going to have trouble covering the cost of WiFi installation using grants then maybe a new model of capital investment is warranted. The path dependency of existing capital allocation through public grants is probably why researchers are so stressed out, and increasingly distracted from their core compentencies. Maybe the era of capital lock-in, bureaucratic bloat, and institutional rigidity is over. Unsustainable dusty old frameworks must adapt or they will perish altogether in obsolescence. This is common wisdom in most sectors.
Ah. Stripping off the rhetorical overburden, I think I see your point:
"Unsustainable dusty old frameworks must adapt or they will perish altogether in obsolescence. This is common wisdom in most sectors."
It's probably common because it's tautological! That said, I'm open to suggestions on just how, specifically, institutional frameworks must adapt so that science can fulfill its raison d'être, including the training of younger generations of curiosity-driven scientists, without sacrificing its privileged authority.
Tangentially, I learned yesterday that last year for the first time in the U.S., wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal, 17.5% vs 15.2%. And that we are slowly working toward generating more energy with non-emitting energy sources than fossil fuels in the U.S., 41.5 % vs 58.5%. That should be headline news and not "Drill, baby, drill." https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vtvv&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.TSN-US-99.A&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&freq=A&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin= .
A couple other points on research: Much of the research grant goes to fund a graduate student or two--tuition plus nominally 20 hours per week working on the grant. In my own case, student funding was 1/4 to 1/2 of the direct costs of the research. Incidentally, tuition is excluded from the indirect charge.
In addition, research grants are the almost exclusive way that students get their hands on state-of-the-art research tools.
Making Russia laugh again
The toilet paper and elevator maintenance is easily in the 15%. Costs of hardware to execute the project are part of the grant request. Change is hard for humans, i get it. Not a well researched post.
15% might cover maintenance and the grant might cover equipment…but what is going to cover the actual construction of buildings, labs, and offices? You’re going to need a lot more than 15% to cover that unless you expect each grant to be a construction project with a little research on the side.