424 signatures
Genetics
- 14,829 supporters taking action on this topic.
- 1 petition started in this community.
Start a petition
Explore 1 petition in Genetics
Topics related to Genetics
Stories and updates from petition starters
10 supporters are talking about petitions related to Genetics!
Even if federal funds are being mismanaged in the sciences, the solution is not to slash indirect cost rates. Academic and research institutions are not prepared to handle such large scale and immediate budget cuts. As a computational chemistry PhD candidate, I rely on the staff that maintains our high performance computing cluster - without that resource I am unable to perform my calculations. My classmates rely on core facilities to conduct their research as well. If the institution I'm at loses this much funding, they will be forced to lay off staff and accept fewer PhD students. Post-docs rely on their funding and are not guaranteed their job if it falls through. Many of these post-docs are on visas that require them to be working, so this could potentially impact the ability of highly skilled researchers to stay in the US. Overall, the drastically reduced indirect cost cap at the NIH will set research in ALL science, engineering, and medical fields back years
Emma supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)I use core facilities funded by IDC costs for my research project, which focuses on studying the genetics of blindness. Cutting these funds will impair my research and discoveries that can be used in the future to help treat blindness.
Daniel supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)I am a postdoctoral researcher at an institute that survives mostly through IDC. Without the institute, I have no place to grow as a researcher, conduct experiments that focus on understanding perception in visually impaired individuals, or even a desk and computer I can sit at.
Sofia supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)The lab I work for studies proteins that contribute to heart disease. Heart disease has been the leading cause of death globally for a century, so I never thought I would have to question if we'd have the resources to continue our work. We rely on institutionally owned and operated equipment--items like electron microscopes that are far too large and expensive for any one lab to own. Indirect costs contribute to the purchasing and maintenance of these items, not to mention the basic functioning of every lab regardless of research topic. Research in the United States is absolutely dependent on much higher indirect cost rates than 15%. Allowing this cap to exist will change the research landscape of the entire world overnight. You should be compelled to do everything you can to prevent this from happening.
Anna supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)Every $1 invested in NIH has an ROI of over $2.40. Beyond the monetary benefit, NIH is responsible for life-saving work, and slashing indirect funds is nothing short of a literal death knell to the American people, and to the USA's health and economy.
The goal shouldn't be blanket cost cutting—it should be ensuring U.S. medical dominance, protecting taxpayer investments, and preventing reckless cost-cutting that backfires in the long run.
At the NIH's current budget, $1 is all it takes to keep science and the best scientists and healthcare in the USA. The tax investment is small, but the rewards and returns for the economy and health are arguably infinite.
If the USA was a company and these cuts were implemented, the board would fire that CEO within a few quarters—not because the cuts saved money, but because they killed future growth, led to brain drain, and weakened the company’s market position.
If Pfizer cut R&D by 50%, it would report higher profits this year, but its drug pipeline would collapse in 5 years, and competitors would overtake if they lose indirect funding for labs, buildings, and IT, facilities engineers, maintenance crews, and basic HR structures.
If Tesla stopped investing in EV batteries by shutting down gigafactories from indirect cost cuts, it might save money this quarter, but BYD or Toyota would replace them as market leaders when they leave a hole in the market.
The same logic applies to U.S. medical research.
If you gut funding in high-yield medical projects, you lose the long-term advantage and will lose decades of progress that cannot be recovered in any relative amount of time. Our grandchildren and their kids will still suffer from this decision if it is not repealed.
If you freeze talent pipelines, your best scientists leave.
If you remove key resources, lawsuits, PR disasters, and public health failures costs go up dramatically in the long run.
We should continue to invest heavily in NIH and critical research instead of handing a US economic powerhouse to its competitors on a paper plate. Instead of causing brain drain, we should invest more and convince the best scientists and staff to work here in the USA, bolstering our economy, our industries, and the health and lives of each and every American.
Tausif supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)This policy will weaken the U.S.’s global leadership in scientific research, technology innovation, and cutting-edge medical advancements. I am a principal investigator working on identifying the causes of devastating brain disorders.
Francesca supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)Indirect costs directly fund core facilities at my institution which help me to further my research in developing a novel therapeutic for Alzheimer’s disease. This decision directly affects my ability to do research and my future career prospects as it will result in crippling effects throughout biotech and biomedical research.
Furthermore, indirect rates are the result of a long negotiation process where institutions have to demonstrate that the amount they are negotiating for is backed up with evidence that those funds are truly necessary. By arbitrarily slashing these rates, the government is collapsing our ability to do important and critical research that can further advance human health. 99.4% of all FDA approved drugs from 2010-2019 in some way benefitted from NIH sponsored research and every dollar spent by the NIH, including on indirect costs, generates 2.5 times the value in economic activity. It is absolutely essential for the health, economy, and technological advancement of the United States to continue investing in the NIH and not slash its funding.
Jennifer supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)Every dollar spent on research funding (whether direct or indirect) pays back in new knowledge, the protection of health, and the vitality and future of young scientists. There is waste, fraud, and abuse in every agency. I've worked for DOE labs, for the NIH intramural, and international agencies, and universities, and the waste, fraud and abuse is the most egregious in DOE and certainly in defense spending. Sacrificing the economy and the nation's health is not the way to "own the libs." Do better, be better. People's lives (kid's lives!) depend on it.
Brandon supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)As a new comer to the pitt research community, the NIH indirect cost cut will directly impact my future prospect in the field. Inclusing myself, this funding cut will put many young and aspiring scietist's career at jeopardy. We are working on possibly life saving medical research, and I believe saving every American's is a bi-party consensus. This funding cut will also put the life's of patients into uncertain future
Owen supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)Nothing is more human than working together in teams to discover new things about ourselves and about the world around us. To thrive in this endeavor, we need to be in good health and we need the resources and infrastructure to chase after those questions that are most important to us. The proposed cuts endanger the entire scientific enterprise and the health of our society . I hope that our leaders and representatives will realize that scientific and medical inquiry are non-partisan endeavors, and that the struggle for discovery and the advancement of knowledge is something over which our divided nation could and should be uniting and working together.
Tiberiu supported: Petition to Reverse the NIH Indirect Cost Cap (NOT-OD-25-068)You’re not alone — a community of supporters is ready to back you.
Start a petition