Universities sue Department of Energy over cuts to scientific research – Washington Examiner
A group of twelve universities and educational organizations has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) over a new policy that imposes a 15% cap on “indirect costs” associated with research funding. The institutions argue that this cap would severely damage scientific research and threaten America’s status as a leader in innovation. they claim that indirect costs—essential for supporting projects not solely attributed to specific research, such as staffing and equipment—normally account for over 30% of research funding, making the cap unsustainable.The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the policy, contending that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Energy Secretary Chris Wright defended the cuts, stating they would enhance efficiency and save taxpayers meaningful money.However, universities warn that if the cap remains, they could face significant funding losses, jeopardizing critical research projects in areas such as nuclear technology and cancer treatment.
Universities sue Department of Energy over cuts to scientific research
A dozen universities and education groups filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy for putting a 15% cap on “indirect costs” for research funding.
In the lawsuit, the schools suggested that the 15% cap on indirect costs would “devastate scientific research at America’s universities and badly undermine our Nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.”
The schools include Michigan State University, the University of Rochester, the University of Michigan, Princeton University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois, Cornell University, the California Institute of Technology, Brown University, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities.
They argued that the Energy Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act by limiting indirect costs, which are costs not attributed to a specific research project. The schools are seeking an injunction after a permanent one was granted for a National Institute of Health policy that was described as a “carbon copy” of the Energy Department policy.
The Energy Department provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to support research. The department’s data reveal that, on average, indirect costs account for more than 30% of funding. The complaint argued that limiting indirect costs would lead to cuts in staffing, training programs, and specialized equipment that aren’t attributed to individual projects.
“Because universities cannot sustain DOE-funded programs at the 15% indirect cost rate that DOE will now inflict, myriad critical projects — often the product of years or decades of effort — are in jeopardy of being stopped in their tracks,” the complaint said. “These include the development of advanced nuclear and cybersecurity technologies, arms control verification mechanisms designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war, novel radioactive drugs to diagnose and treat cancer, and upgrades for the electrical grids that keep the lights on in rural communities, among many others.”
However, Energy Secretary Chris Wright suggested that cutting indirect costs would help improve efficiency and save taxpayers $405 million annually.
WHAT IS DOGE? WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
“The purpose of Department of Energy funding to colleges and universities is to support scientific research — not foot the bill for administrative costs and facility upgrades,” Wright said in a statement. “With President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring every dollar of taxpayer funding is being used efficiently to support research and innovation – saving millions for the American people.”
Universities could lose millions of dollars in their research budget if the 15% cap on indirect costs stays in place.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...