Subject: Grants Overhead

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 OCT 92 09:47:38

NRC%"<[email-masked]>"  "G. Ravishanker"  wrote:

<Folks
<
<I was listening to parts of Bill Clinton's interview with Larry King on
<CNN last night and one question and its answer interested me very much and
<thought people in this list may be interested in discussing about it.
<
<Someone called in with a question to Clinton as to what his strategy is
<towards basic research in academic instituions. The question also
<mentioned that Clinton plan proposes to cut budget for such research. His
<explanation was that he does not intend to cut budget for research per se,
<but plans to cut the adminstrative cost associated with the grants (I
<guess he was referring to indirect costs) and funnel most of it back to
<research grants. Therefore, he claims that his plan actually will funnel
<more money back into research. 
<
<On the surface this looks great, however, how can the Govt. control
<indirect costs, except to say that we will not give beyond a certain
<percent of the direct costs to you. Will the Adminstrators of the academia
<agree to such proposal? (Since the indirect costs can run as high as 70%
<in some cases, the savings from reducing this may be significant...)
<What do people in this newsgroup think of this idea? 
<
<Ravi

	You work in a sheltered setting if you think indirect costs
can be "as high as" 70%.  That may be true for academic institutions,
as the caller directed his question, but I doubt that Clinton was
focusing his answer to the letter of the caller's question.  The
overwhelming majority of government reseach money is not spent by
scientists at academic institutions.  Actually, the share of research 
funds that go to academic institutions is quite small (see the U.S. 
Census Bureau publications).  For example the DOE has about a dozen, 
very large laboratories that it runs.  The indirect costs at the lab 
I am leaving could choke a horse: 250% not (not) including any kind of 
secretarial support (like drawing figures for publications or typing 
papers or letters) or travel or even matching funds for equipment
purchases.  My guess is that all of the federal agencies run with
similar efficiency.  Thus, one has to wonder what portion of the NSF
budget finds its way to the universities.  Bill Clinton is definitely
on the right track by attacking this "fat"; which has ballooned under
the Reagan and Bush administrations.

	As I see it; the (fed) budget allocated for research could be 
cut in half while maintaining an increase real dollars spent on 
research.  The first step is to release most (if not all) of the 
high-priced welfare recepients from their "management" positions in
federal agencies.

                 			Happy Discussions,
					
                                        Randall C. Boehm, Ph. D.
					[email-masked] (4 more weeks)