A Federal Massachusetts judge prevented the Trump administration on Monday from earning billions of dollars in reduction of financing for NIH a few hours after California and 21 other states managed by Democrats continued, saying that the action would injure Americans who would benefit from vital medical discoveries in cancer, diabetes and other important diseases.
By granting a temporary ban order, the American district judge Angel Kelley suggested that she has accepted, for the moment, with arguments in the trial saying that drastic cuts would cause irreparable damage to medical research at the University of California, the California State University and other institutions.
States, supported by university presidents, have allegedly allegedly allegedly allegedly $ 4 billion “would result in dismissals, suspension of clinical trials, the disruption of current research programs and laboratory closings.”
The stop only applies to 22 states – including Arizona, Michigan, New York, Hawaii and Massachusetts – which continued. No state with republican governors have joined.
Kelley's decision is not final but applies as the case continues in court. The judge ordered the States to present themselves within 24 hours on the state of their funding and to follow every two weeks to verify the cash flow. The next hearing is scheduled for February 21.
In a press release, California Atty. General Rob Bonta said he was satisfied with the court's decision. “My colleagues lawyers general and I closely monitor to make sure that the Trump administration is following the court order,” he said.
UC officials said in a statement that they were “grateful to the judge's order … The University of California is committed to working with the new administration to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are well spent on innovations and vital research.”
UC is a great beneficiary of funding for NIH research. He was not awarded the pursuit but made a statement in support of the case.
THE NIH policy announced on Friday evening Reduces more than half of his expenses for the general costs linked to research subsidies. Called “indirect funding”, money pays for research supplies, buildings, public services, support staff and other costs.
The trial argues that NIH cuts behave in federal law. He cites part of a 2018 credits law which prohibits the NIH from making “unilateral differences in relation to negotiated rates” in its financing of general costs to institutions. This part of the budgetary rule “has remained in force through each law of credits governing the HHS to date,” said the prosecution, referring to the Ministry of Health and Social Services under which the NIH operates. He also cites the Act respecting the administrative procedure, adopted in 1946, concerning the changes in the rules of the Federal Agency.
The Trump administration “violates the law” and wants to “avoid funding for medical research,” said Bonta about the prosecution, which was filed against the Ministry of Health and Social Services and the NIH.
The NIH led the Times to the Ministry of Health and Social Services to comment on the prosecution. An HHS official refused to comment because on current disputes and did not answer a question of follow -up on the judge's order.
The NIH grants more than $ 35 billion in annual funding for a wide range of medical research on Alzheimer's disease, parkinson, heart disease, cerebral accidents and studies on military veterans and trauma, among other health conditions.
California universities are among the largest winners of NIH grants in the country and UC receives more than half of the NIH distributions in the state. Stanford, Caltech, USC and CSU also receive important research subsidies.
What the NIH cut the target
From Monday, indirect financing sponsored by the NIH had to be capped at 15% of subsidies, against 57% that many UCLA research projects receive and the 64% granted to the UC San Francisco, which has the highest rate of the UC system.
The new policy would affect subsidies supporting in progress and news.
By announcing the cuts, the NIH involved on a publication on social networks and on its website that universities with large grants spent too much money from taxpayers in general costs.
A graphic published on the NIH X account have shown the endowments of several billion dollars of Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins next to their indirect financing rates. Harvard's was the highest at 69%. ComparedNIH cited private foundations, including the Chan Zuckerberg initiative and the Gates Foundation, saying that their general costs are 15% or less.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” said the NIH Guidance published on his website. “It is therefore essential to guarantee that as many funds as possible is towards direct scientific research costs rather than general administrative costs.”
In an email at Times on Monday, HHS spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon said that “most of these higher education institutions already have billions of dollars.” He also declared that the ministry had the power to ensure that universities reimburse “the excess general costs they had previously received”, but decided not to do so.
The ministry “will continue to assess” the “choice of police policy and if it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer,” the email said.
Why researchers say that funds are essential
University leaders and medical researchers say that money, although labeled “indirect funding”, is essential for their work and pays to continue to save science – to ensure the appropriate storage of organic samples to keep animals live for medical tests.
In an email to UC researchers on Monday, Katherine S. Newman, provost of the UC system and executive vice-president of academic affairs, explained how funding is used.
She said that indirect money pays for “staff who ensure the safety of adults and children registering for clinical trials” and ethics teams working on trials. Budgets, she write, are “carefully audited”. Newman also noted that reductions “would disrupt a critical relationship with the partners of the pharmaceutical industry and devices that rely on our independent research and clinical trials to establish the effectiveness of emerging treatments”.
The trial echoes these concerns.
“To carry out research, a university needs buildings and must maintain these buildings and provide them with heat and electricity,” said the trial. “A university also needs the infrastructure necessary to comply with legal, regulatory and declaration requirements.
The trial said that university administrative support, including office staff, IT support, cybersecurity and data servers, “helps to make research possible without being attributable to a subsidy or a specific project”.
The funding rates are negotiated in the agreements between the government and the universities, the trial, but have now been unilaterally modified.
“No law allows NIH to unilaterally modify all retroactively current subsidies,” said the file. “No power of this type has been transmitted by the congress here. Indeed, the congress explicitly limited the authority of the NIH to modify the indirect cost rates retroactively.
The trial adds that the Ministry of Health and Social Services also has its own regulations which prohibit the NIH from making “blind changes” to subsidies. The pursuit alleys that the NIH “acted beyond its statutory authority”.
What is at risk in California
The NIH provided $ 2.6 billion $ 4.2 billion in Federal UC awards last year, with its San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles campuses receiving major part of the funding.
Stanford obtained $ 613 million during the same period. The USC collected more than $ 356 million in NIH funds last year. In the 23 CSU campuses, NIH prices totaled $ 158 million last year. Caltech received more than $ 62 million.
UC president Michael Drake said on Monday that the cuts, if made, would be a “devastating blow” and that the university is “ready to fight”.
“Like the dozens of institutions across the country, the University of California has relied on NIH grants to pursue vital research that benefits the Americans nationally,” said Drake. “The discounts of this magnitude would bring a devastating blow to the research and innovation company of our country, undermine our global competitiveness and, if it is authorized to move forward, it will eventually delay or derail the progression to treatment and remedies for many of the most serious illnesses that afflict us today.”
“It is not only an attack on science, but against American health largely,” said Drake.
In a statement, USC officials said the changes had placed its “endangered” medical research and that “we are working in close collaboration with partner organizations to approach this evolving environment so that we continue our work on behalf of the public good”.
Jason Maymon, a spokesperson for the CSU, said in a statement that the cuts threatened “the future of students' innovation and scientific progress”.
“Federal funding for grants is vital for the CSU teaching and research mission, which takes up some of the most urgent challenges of the company in terms of health, agriculture, water, fire prevention and cybersecurity,” said Maymon.
In a statement on Saturday, Stanford managers said that the cuts would amount to $ 160 million a year at the university, affecting the “construction of the laboratory space, the purchase and maintenance of scientific tools and research IT”.
“Indirect costs are the way the government is investing in research infrastructure for the nation and is vital for our research activities,” said a message on the campus signed by the Jenny Martinez provost, dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr Lloyd Minor and Vice-Prévôt and Dean of Research David Studer.
