http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/03/06/drug-industry-greats-say-the-u-s-must-reverse-the-cuts-to-our-investment-in-science/
The usual diatribe around NIH budget cuts and the end of research. Aside from the particularly interesting notion that unless NIH funds medical research, we won't have treatments for the looming large aging population and the diseases they will have, when NIH funding hasn't produced any effective treatments for chronic disease. Might be the opposite, in fact. But that off the specific point, on how the budget cut of 8% will devastate research. Hmmm. Sounds fishy, considering even conservative estimates suggest at least 33% of the budget goes to overhead. What's that? That is the charge that research organizations and universities levy on top of the actual cost of the research project funded. There are places that command even over 100% overhead, but most of that gouging is directed at the DoD where they are less adverse to it. So if NIH is sending $1.50 to an organization for every research dollar requested, it seems that there is a nice spot for the cutting, overhead. If overhead rates are reduced to a more reasonable rate, maybe the 15% maximum that many foundations allow, we'd get more research done for every tax dollar, as well as absorb the budget contraction. Of course, that would mean the massive artifices that have evolved by living on the overhead would go. Of course, less bureaucracy is generally untenable in these kinds of institutions. Perfect! We can just turn to more adaptive institutions. Not all that hard.
