PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — The consequences of the federal government’s plan to lower indirect costs rates for all National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants would have devastating impacts on Brown University’s ability to conduct research, according to Brown’s chief research officer. The move would derail years of research progress, threaten clinical trials, put hundreds of jobs at risk, impact suppliers, and have ripple effects across the economy.
Greg Hirth — Brown’s vice president for research and a professor of Earth, environmental and planetary sciences — outlined those impacts and others in a declaration in support of a federal court lawsuit filed on Monday, Feb. 10, by the Rhode Island attorney general and 21 other state attorneys general in the Massachusetts federal district court.
“At a 15% indirect cost rate, many of Brown’s current research projects and clinical trials will be forced to cease abruptly,” Hirth wrote. “Conducting research requires laboratory facilities, data processing and research computing equipment, privacy and ethical protections for human subjects, and qualified support staff who can ensure that projects are conducted safely, within budget, and in compliance with all relevant regulations. Although indirect costs do not cover the full costs of these activities, they are critical to Brown’s ability to fund the research enterprise.”
Even a temporary interruption of work would threaten clinical trials that supply lifesaving medicine and risk derailing years of careful progress and efforts directed towards major health challenges, he noted.
“More broadly, the ecosystem of American medical, health and scientific innovation depends upon university research, which in turn, feeds into the private biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries,” Hirth wrote. “This ecosystem would be significantly harmed by disruptions to federally sponsored, university-conducted research, with immense consequences for our nation’s competitiveness, economy and ability to respond to health crises.”
The declaration from Hirth follows Feb. 7 guidance issued by the NIH directing the lowering of indirect cost rates to a universal 15% rate, applying not only to new grants but also to existing grants. The reduction to the indirect cost rate is set to take effect on Feb. 10.
Hirth said that if NIH’s indirect cost rate is reduced to 15%, Brown cannot simply make up for the resulting gap in funding through alternative means. Brown’s full cost of research is already significantly more than what is covered by sponsored direct costs and indirect cost recovery. In the 2022 fiscal year, for example, Brown’s full cost of research was estimated at $315 million, which was $66 million more than sponsored direct costs and indirect cost recovery. Brown made approximately $37 million in additional investments, including through research incentive programs, cost-sharing and other programs. And the University took on $28 million in “unrecovered” indirect costs. Because Brown’s federal awards are capped at 26% for administrative costs, all Brown’s administrative costs above 26% go unrecovered and are paid for by the University.
Should the NIH rate reduction move forward, Brown would need to move quickly to adjust its operations to absorb the loss of revenue, Hirth wrote. That could include cutting more than 200 jobs for personnel that support its research enterprises and facilities, such as administrators, research coordinators, lab managers, animal care staff, custodial staff, security officers, plumbers, electricians, food service employees, clinical coordinators and research nurses.
Ensuring the continued flow of federal funding
In a separate action on Friday, Feb. 7, Hirth submitted a declaration in support of a filing by the Rhode Island attorney general asking a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction that would ensure the continued flow of federal funding to all current grantees, including Brown.
“The federal funding Brown receives supports cutting-edge, multi-year research projects spanning a wide range of subjects in the national interest, including national security, human health, and emerging areas of science and technology,” Hirth’s declaration said. “As a research university with the only schools of public health and medicine in Rhode Island, Brown contributes to world-class medical care, strong patient outcomes, and innovative solutions for pressing health challenges facing all communities.”
Hirth noted that as a major research institution, Brown received more than $254 million in federal funding in Fiscal Year 2024 from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, NASA and other federal agencies. He outlined examples of federally funded Brown research that serves national interests. Those ranged from School of Engineering researchers developing technology to make manned undersea vehicles more effective; to School of Public Health scholars working on clinical trials focused on dementia, and on research to prevent heart disease; to NASA’s Rhode Island Space Grant Program, which promotes the study of STEM at all education levels to create a pipeline for and support NASA’s space exploration and research. This program is a consortium of partners including most of Rhode Island's public and private colleges and universities, and Brown has been the lead institution since 1991.
“If the pause in federal financial assistance were to be reinstated, or if such funding were to be withdrawn permanently, all of Brown’s research programs that rely on federal funding… would be in jeopardy,” Hirth wrote.
He noted that Brown works in partnership with the federal government in its research endeavors and shoulders a substantial portion of the research costs. In FY24, Brown’s research and development expenditures totaled more than $374 million, with the University contributing $69.8 million. Over the last two years, Brown’s contribution to its institutional research enterprise has grown by $13 million.
Research programs that depend on federal funding would need to be severely downsized or even suspended, Hirth said, if the pause were to be reinstated. That would threaten a loss of institutional memory with respect to key research tasks, jeopardizing both the ability to pay salaries and the continuity of research for a broad range of research scientists, postdoctoral associates and graduate students.
“These disruptions, interruptions and uncertainty in federal research funding and the resulting staffing gaps will in turn significantly compromise scientific advancement in numerous areas critical to the public interest, including national security, human health, and innovations in science and technology,” he wrote.
Hirth outlined some of the near-immediate disruptions to ongoing research at Brown that followed the OMB directive. Those include cancellation of grant renewal reviews, a stop-work order on a sub-award that supports a U.S. State Department grant, missed and delayed payments to postdoctoral fellows who are paid directly by the National Science Foundation, and uncertainty on whether to purchase research equipment.
Hirth’s declaration supports the plaintiffs in State of New York et. al. vs. Trump et. al., a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island by attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia, including the Rhode Island attorney general.
The case asks for a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from suspending financial support, including federal funding to support research. A temporary restraining order has blocked the federal government from implementing a freeze on federal funding, and the motion from the attorneys general for preliminary injunction that Hirth supported with his declaration seeks to keep that block in place until the case can be heard in full.
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story was published on Friday, Feb. 7, focused on the State of New York et. al. vs. Trump et. al. filing only. The story was updated on Monday, Feb. 10, to add information on the additional declaration the University submitted that is focused on the impacts of reductions to NIH’s indirect cost rate.