The Good Science Project writes on metascience, research funding, NIH indirect costs, research fraud and how science is organized.
HN commenters cite its NIH indirect costs post for context on funding rules and reform ideas, though they disagree on how to read it.
https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih This reads that argument in the exact opposite direction:
> So, an HHS division like NIH can use a different rate only for a “class” of grants or a “single” grant, and only with “documented justification.”
> There is nothing that says NIH could, in one fell swoop, overturn literally every negotiated rate agreement for 100% of all grants with all medical and academic institutions in the world, with the only justification being “foundations do it” rather than any costing principle whatsoever from the rest of Part 75 of 45 C.F.R.
Further, this doesn't allow a blanket adjustment to existing awards.
This blog post gives some good context on why indirect rates exist and some more reasonable ideas for reforming the current system: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Oh, they already killed some of the best education research already: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/inexplicable-cuts-at-the-dept-of