Main Menu
The Post U research leaders: Keep doing the science

U research leaders: Keep doing the science

Published on:

By Brian Maffly, Research Communications Specialist, University Marketing & Communications

Note: This story originally appeared in @theU.

In the face of potentially massive cuts in federal research funding, senior University of Utah leaders met with nearly 900 faculty and other researchers at a virtual town hall this week to address their concerns and explain the U’s efforts to minimize the negative consequences unveiled by the supplemental notice released by the National Institutes of Health on Feb. 7.

The message was upbeat and urged the U research community to continue applying for NIH grants and hiring graduate students to staff their labs.

“We are not only expanding the impact of our work but also reinforcing the vital role of research in delivering solutions that change lives, foster collaboration, drive economic development and address national security,” said Erin Rothwell, vice president for research. “Senior leaders’ unwavering support ensures that we will continue to invest in talent, partnerships and infrastructure necessary to keep the U at the leading edge of innovation.”

The Office of the Vice President for Research is posting regular updates on the unfolding situation on the VPR webpage.

Last week, the NIH announced it was capping reimbursements for research-related costs to universities for indirect costs at a uniform rate of 15%, replacing a long-standing practice of determining the rate through a process of negotiation. The move, touted to save taxpayers $4 billion, would have vast effects on the nation’s biomedical research community and triggered three lawsuits that resulted in temporary restraining orders pausing the order from taking effect. Arguments will be heard in court on Feb. 21.

These indirect costs, known as “facilities and administrative costs” (F&A), cover utilities, buildings and labs, maintenance, computing support and other costs that cannot be directly attached to any specific grant. The NIH’s proposal would reduce the U’s research revenue by approximately $45 million across the University of Utah, Rothwell said.

Joined by Provost Mitzi Montoya, President Taylor Randall, Neli Ulrich, chief scientific officer at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and incoming Senior Vice President for Health Sciences Bob Carter, university research leaders have been in communication with Utah’s legislative and congressional representatives to explain the challenges such a cut would mean for the U’s research mission and why the NIH’s move is neither warranted nor wise.

“There’s going to be a shorter-term and a longer-term strategy. The shorter-term strategy is these temporary restraining orders which will allow us to continue to do our work,” Randall said. “If there is a shorter-term message to all of you today, it is to continue to do your work the way you have been doing. The second piece will be a longer-term strategy of advocacy. It will occur both locally in our Legislature, but also nationally with our federal delegation.”

While the cuts sought by NIH would slow medical discoveries, they would not stop innovation from occurring at the U, officials emphasized.

“We’re hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the coming weeks. We’re working actively to understand the full impact of this change at a financial and a social level and how we get our work done going forward,” Carter said. “As upsetting as this set of changes might appear to be, I want you to know that it’s important for all of us to retain a focus on our work.”

To justify its proposed 15% cap, NIH highlighted the 10% reimbursement rate given by private foundations that support university research. But Rothwell argued the comparison is not apples to apples, and federal F&A reimbursements allow shared infrastructure, such as key high-technology, to be utilized for foundation research.

She noted that some of the U’s F&A outlays are not reimbursed.

“Reimbursement rates have never been intended to completely cover the cost of research,” she said. “It is a shared responsibility between the institution, the state and the federal government.”

Now more than ever, the U.S. should be investing in research, U leaders said. Biomedical research has vastly improved human health over the past decades. For example, cancer mortality rates have been reduced by 30% over the past 30 years, they noted

“Yet, as a country, we are in a technology race and the U.S. in the past five years has fallen behind,” Rothwell said. Citing the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, she noted that of the world’s 64 critical technologies, the U.S. is only leading in seven, which undermines the nation’s ability to compete globally.

U researchers should understand why there are efforts to question how research funding can be more efficiently used and to recognize the critique that they are not moving fast enough.

“We need to rethink how should we accelerate science. How do we make changes within our own institution so that we can continue to address national priorities and continue for the R1 institution to remain relevant, but also responsive to the critical technologies to keep our country going,” Rothwell said. “So moving from threat to opportunity is the theme for the next town hall. We’ll be talking about what are predisclosures, what are the critical technologies that need to be addressed for our country to remain strong and how do they link some of our strengths already?”

In the meantime, U faculty questions reflected myriad concerns for how the cuts would play out in their labs, especially with bringing in new students for research whose employment they may not be able to guarantee.

Leaders urged them to forge ahead with their research.

“We need proposals to continue to come out of the university. We have done nothing but increase the number of proposals coming out of our institution from $1.9 billion in 2020 to $2.58 billion in 2024,” Rothwell said. “We are continuing to grow, and we will weather any changes that are going to be happening, but we need you to continue to pursue your work. It’s extremely important.”

U leaders welcomed faculty to engage in their activism to oppose the cuts, as long as they do so constructively and adhere to the university’s guidelines on political advocacy. Rothwell is hosting another virtual town hall for faculty on Feb. 18, along with Q&A meetings on Fridays.

Many researchers wondered why the U was not more directly engaged in the litigation challenging the F&A cuts. Suits were brought by 22 Democratic-led states, several research institutions and the Association of American Medical Colleges, which the U is a member of. The AAMC suit was the one that resulted in a nationwide TRO issued Tuesday, Feb. 11, blocking the cuts.

Jakob Jensen, associate vice president for research, said the university is following guidance from the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, or APLU, “which asked us to join certain efforts and not join others so that we could try to win overall.”

“The best move here legally is not for us to be in everything. It’s actually for us to be where we are needed and where they think we will be valuable. The legal landscape is somewhat complex,” Jensen said. “We are optimally moving behind the scenes, following the guidance of our peers and these collectives, and that’s how we best exert action.”