Eliyahu Gasson | opinions editor

The National Institutes of Health announced a funding cut on Feb. 7, causing confusion among researchers across the country and possible concern at Duquesne.

The NIH said they would cap indirect costs at 15% for all grant recipients, which could drastically reduce the amount of grant funding going to research institutions. Indirect costs are a part of grants given to institutions that conduct research and are necessary for the institution to run.

According to Duquesne University’s Research Policy, the university’s on-campus indirect rate is 38%. That money goes toward building maintenance, utilities, office space and overall research infrastructure, but is not necessarily specific to a certain project, according to Melanie Turk, an associate professor and researcher at Duquesne University.

Duquesne last year received more than $1.6 million dollars in NIH grants.

“Each institution negotiates a rate based on what their research expenditures are in those overhead categories and this determines how much funding they get for their indirect costs,” she said.

A study being conducted by Turk, “Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program awareness and implementation,” is a year-long program related to the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program, a free program for Medicare part B and C recipients that aims to prevent older adults who are at risk for the development of adult onset diabetes, also known as type 2 diabetes.

“Unfortunately, despite the fact that it’s a fully covered benefit, there has not been a lot of participation by older adults,” she said. “Only about 5,000 or so have gone through the program since 2018. So our study is trying to do a deeper dive into the Medicare program to learn about facilitators and barriers to implementing the program for health care providers and older adults.”

Turk’s research received $426,000 from the NIH in 2023 with $104,250 allocated from indirect costs. The money for indirect costs are paid out to Duquesne as the university bills the NIH. Turk said she thinks her study could be affected if the university decides to cut jobs from administrative offices including the Office of Research & Innovation.

A federal judge temporarily blocked the cut on Feb. 10 following a complaint filed by 22 state attorneys general in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The decision by the NIH has also been challenged by a coalition of academic institutions in a separate complaint including the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities and 12 universities including the University of Chicago and Carnegie Mellon University.

“This change would have immediate and sweeping consequences on the ability of universities across America to fund essential infrastructure and services required to support groundbreaking research that advances human health and improves lives,” James Garret, provost and chief academic officer and Theresa Mayer, vice president for research at Carnegie Mellon University wrote in a news release on Feb. 9.

Although Duquesne is a member of the American Council on Education, the university is not involved in the lawsuit, according to Gabriel Welsch, vice president of marketing and communications at Duquesne.

“The university is a member of numerous associations that pursue lawsuits or other legal actions of which Duquesne (and other universities) are not always necessarily a part,” he said in an email to The Duke.

In an email addressed to the Duquesne University community sent on Feb. 3, university President Ken Gormley announced that he charged a number of working groups at Duquesne to “research and recommend actions related to the potential impact of orders related to certain key topics.”

The topics he listed for the working groups to address included federal student aid, campus safety, maintaining a welcoming environment, immigration, faculty research and funding, academic freedom and others.

“Those working groups will draw on their own expertise as well as that of national professional organizations and outside experts to assemble plans that will help guide us as actions of the new administration come into sharper focus,” the letter said. “I have great optimism that we will find our way to effectively address this changing landscape. Each time I ask my leadership team about progress, it’s clear they’re gathering up-to-date information and preparing thoroughly for a variety of contingencies.”

Gormley’s letter was released before the NIH announced its plan to cut indirect costs. However, according to Media Relations Manager Ken Walters, a research working group has since convened to discuss the implications of the NIH’s decision.

“As part of this work, this research working group is reviewing the NIH guidance on indirect cost rates and is endeavoring to identify possible solutions to potential resulting changes in funding,” Walters said in an email to The Duke.