The NIH's recent 15% cap on indirect funding to grantees is facing legal challenges and criticism, as only Congress can legally modify NIH funding formulas. Concerns arise about the impact on research institutions, particularly state universities, with potential significant budget reductions affecting biomedical innovation. The policy change threatens America's global leadership in biomedical research, with estimates suggesting Harvard alone could lose $70 million in funding.
College education costs in America have actually decreased over the past decade, with public university costs falling 21% and private universities down 12% after inflation adjustment. The misconception stems from rising sticker prices while actual net costs after financial aid continue to decline, with 82-87% of students receiving aid. Declining enrollment trends suggest costs will likely continue decreasing as institutions compete for students.
The University of Pittsburgh has suspended Ph.D. admissions due to uncertainty surrounding NIH funding cuts, which would reduce indirect research cost caps from 59% to 15%. Other major research universities are taking similar precautionary measures, while NIH grant funding has already decreased by 56% compared to 2024.
Research reveals that about 10% of top global scientists are producing unusually high numbers of publications and gaining new co-authors at implausible rates. Analysis of Nobel laureates shows publication rates typically peak at 20 papers yearly and 35 new co-authors annually, suggesting current excessive rates may indicate 'paper pumping' and questionable practices.