ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Policy

Re: Indirect research costs

June 5, 2017 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 95, ISSUE 23

Readers commented on overhead costs described in our May 29 issue (page 17).

cenm.ag/203

Top-tier institutions have been charging 50–60% overhead for many years. At the same time, they’ve been on a building boom, creating fancy new research buildings, student centers, athletic facilities, and dorms while replacing faculty with adjuncts. Administrators claim the budgets are “separate,” but this doesn’t pass the smell test. Surely lots of overhead revenue is going to frivolous amenities and extra administration.

Josh Kurutz via Facebook

I think most administrators want their hands in the grant money. The dean of math and science at my college always wanted to justify his need for thousands of dollars from our grant for overhead, aka his own special projects around his department, which is illegal. The politics between administrators and the PI is astounding; as much as we want our scientists, lab techs, equipment, and technology paid for, I think we need to pay attention to the money spent by administrators.

Samantha Barrera via Facebook

Many necessary costs like sprinklers, safe HVAC, EHS, and accessibility simply didn’t exist “back then” and drive ops costs.

Peter Kelly-Joseph (@PeterK_J) via Twitter

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment