Virginia Tech talks of potential NIH research budget cuts; possibly $13 million impact
The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced guidance for its 2024 grants, in regards to what are known as 'indirect cost rates'. The NIH says it awards grants for research purposes, and moving forward all indirect costs will be capped at 15%. The NIH says they recognize organizations use these funds to cover overhead costs but says:
'The NIH is obligated to carefully steward grant awards to ensure taxpayer dollars are used in ways that benefit the American people and improve their quality of life. Indirect costs are, by their very nature, 'not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefited,' and are therefore difficult for NIH to oversee.'
Virginia Tech says indirect costs they face include safeguarding human test subjects, plus the costs to build, maintain, and operate research tools and facilities.
Virginia lawmakers pass new state budget deal
'That is used to support the kind of research that is done here in Roanoke and in Blacksburg to cure cancer, to look at how covid is transmitted, for example. That was research many years ago that really helped a nation and a world address covid in really meaningful and impactful ways. So we're looking potentially at a $13 million impact,' said Mark Owczarski, Interim Vice President of Communications and Marketing.
At this years State of the University address, President Tim Sands pointed out potential impact of these cuts:
'We'd like to acknowledge the challenges that many of you are facing as we interpret and respond to a flurry of executive orders that impact higher education,' said Tim Sands, President of Virginia Tech, 'We will follow the law, but we will do so once we fully understand the directives and the applications to Virginia tech. We do not yet have many of those answers, but we are collecting information and providing guidance where we can.'
As of now, Owczarski says there will be no changes to graduate admissions due to these cuts.He says that due to the fluidity and newness of these cuts, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what research will be affected.
Sands says as the university learns more, it will announce multiple town halls for community members to share their opinions on how the university can move forward. The university will continue to update the community on its website.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
American Military News
16 minutes ago
- American Military News
Pentagon plans ‘reaction force' for ‘domestic civil disturbance: Report
A new report claims that President Donald Trump's administration is developing plans to potentially create a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' of 600 U.S. National Guard troops that could be quickly deployed in the event of civil unrest. According to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post, the Trump administration's 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' plan would involve roughly 600 National Guard troops being ready to deploy at all times. The outlet noted that the National Guard troops would be separated into two groups of 300 troops at military bases in Arizona and Alabama and would be ready to deploy in as little as one hour. The Washington Post reported that while the Pentagon documents have been marked as predecisional, the documents contain comprehensive plans and discussions regarding the potential implications of the creation of a National Guard 'reaction force.' According to The Washington Post, the plans have been compiled by the National Guard and have time stamps from late July and early August. READ MORE: Trump deploys Nat'l Guard in DC, takes federal control of DC police Fox News reported that the Trump administration's reported plans for a National Guard 'reaction force' would require the president to use Title 32, which would allow Trump to bypass normal restrictions regarding the use of the military for domestic purposes and would authorize National Guard troops to use certain law enforcement powers. The Washington Post reported that it is not yet clear whether the plans for the 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' have been reviewed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said, 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The Pentagon's potential plans for a 'reaction force' come after Trump has deployed the National Guard multiple times in response to domestic issues. In response to June's anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles, the president deployed thousands of National Guard members and U.S. Marines to maintain order in the city and provide protection for ICE officials and government property. According to Fox News, Trump also deployed 800 D.C. National Guard troops on Monday as part of his plan to federalize Washington, D.C., and crack down on surging crime in the nation's capital.
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump, EU leaders to talk ahead of Friday's Putin meeting in Alaska
President Donald Trump spoke with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the 2025 NATO Summit in the Netherlands, on June 25. Merz has organized a meeting between Trump and European leaders to discuss the Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo by NATO/UPI | License Photo Aug. 13 (UPI) -- Ahead of President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, the European Union will have a call with him Wednesday to remind him that he shouldn't negotiate without Ukraine. The call on Wednesday, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will include Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders who are friendly with Trump, like Italy Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Zelensky will be in Berlin for the meeting, his office said on Wednesday, and is expected to later brief reporters with Merz. At the Friday meeting in Alaska, Trump will meet with Putin to try to end the war with Ukraine. But Zelensky hasn't been invited. "We cannot accept that territorial issues between Russia and America are discussed or even decided over the heads of Europeans, over the heads of Ukrainians," Merz said in a TV interview Sunday. "I assume that the American government sees it the same way. That is why there is this close coordination." Merz, a center-right politician, has heavily courted Trump since taking office in May. He has tried to impress upon Trump that if the United States were to boldly intervene on behalf of Ukraine, it could drive Putin into a cease-fire and peace talks. Trump's recent frustration with Russia's repeated bombing of Ukraine has made him more receptive to Merz's pleas. But this week, he told reporters he wanted to see what Putin had on his mind, and if he could broker "a deal," which could include swaps of land held by Ukraine and Russia. But peace on bad terms for Putin might encourage him to send troops to another neighbor and threaten Europe. "It's really a concern that Putin might feel emboldened," Anna Sauerbrey, foreign editor for Germany's Die Zeit newspaper, told The New York Times. "Not to go for Berlin, of course, but to cause some unrest in other Baltic countries, other European countries." Europe's leaders seemed optimistic that Trump will hear their pleas and take Europe's needs into consideration. The EU on Tuesday demanded that the Ukrainian people should determine their own future and that no peace deal with Russia could be decided without Ukraine at the table. Hungary disavowed itself from the calls. Leaders of 26 of 27 European Union nations said in a statement that viable negotiations must be within the framework of a cease-fire or easing of hostilities and warned of the threat the war posed to European and international security. There appears to be "more of an understanding from the Americans that you can't just go for land swaps which would somehow give a prize to Russia," said one European Union official, who was granted anonymity by the Washington Post. But, the official said, "it's clear that there are sort of discrepancies, and as we've seen it in the U.S. system by now, you have one man who will decide." Trump told reporters Monday that "It's not up to me to make a deal," echoing what Europe is saying, that Ukraine must be part of the negotiations. "I guess everyone's afraid Putin will play Trump's ego again like he has in the past," said a second European official to the Washington Post. "Who knows, maybe he comes there with another noble-sounding offer or maybe they give [Trump] some state award."
