A federal judge on Friday would extend an order blocking the National Institutes of Health from reducing grant funding, and extend the order to institutions conducting medical and scientific research until it becomes a more permanent decision. I agreed to.
The hold expired Monday as Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Angel Kelly temporarily blocked the Trump administration's cuts from coming into effect earlier this month. State and associations representing these agencies cheered up the emergency hearing on Friday when she urged her to consider stopping the suspension for more permanently.
The litigation interests received severe relief during a part of Friday's hearing focused on “irreparable harm.” Judge Kelly asked both sides whether the suspension of funds would amount to an irreversible blow to universities and hospitals. The nation is dependent on funds.
NIH proposes cutting the approximately $4 billion in grants that provide “indirect costs.” This is described as tangential expenditures for things like facilities and managers, and is said to be more spent on direct funding for research. The proposal assumes that funds for these indirect costs will be reduced to a 15% fee for all institutions receiving the funds. This said government lawyers are in line with that of the private foundation.
However, co-judicial counsel representing states and research institutions argued to judges that direct and indirect costs are often intertwined.
A lawyer and Judge Kelley have a scenario for researchers who conduct experiments directly funded through NIH grants and workers dispose of harmful medical waste generated by all experiments running at the facility. I asked them to consider it.
“It's equally important for research that both of these people are paid to do their job,” the lawyer said. “Without that, research could not have happened. Nevertheless, one is classified as a direct cost, and is an indirect cost.”
The plaintiff's lawyers checked through a series of adverse effects that could arise from a funding suspension.
They asked the judges to consider the potential layoff effects of highly skilled staff, including animal research and veterinary technicians who oversee hospital nurses. They warned about clinical trials on new drugs that have been suspended. They argued that many agencies were unable to revive lost employees after the experiments and trials were forced to halt.
Brian Lee, a lawyer representing the government on Friday, said the broad effect mentioned at the hearing was a part of the “non-urgency, non-specific aura” that the research institution drove without showing any specific damage. He said that it is primarily speculative as a division.
With the university in the middle of the enrollment season, the plaintiff's lawyer explained the environment where both the school and the doctoral degree were confused. Applicants will need to reevaluate whether the project they plan to pursue is viable. And they expressed fear of a small university that is likely not able to fill the unexpected gaps left in their budgets.
The plaintiff's lawyer said the government's funding promise had already affected the major investments, and the government's funding promise had already affected the major investments.
They pointed to California Institute of Technology's $200 million neuroscience research lab, which ended in 2020.
“There's actually something big going to make a hole in California's research budget,” the lawyer said.
The plaintiff's lawyer said other groups not involved in the case, as well as associations of dental and nursing schools, were also invested in the results, fearing disruption in his business.
“Are you willing to agree to harm the plaintiffs?” Judge Kelly asked a government lawyer after hearing a lengthy list of examples that have been featured by the group being sued.
“It's irreparable,” replied Lee.
He said states and associations suing the government have other means of recovering lost funds, such as litigation under the Tucker Act, where groups can sue the government on contract requests. He added that the 15% cap is consistent with what private foundations, such as the Gates Foundation, often agree.
Previously, Lee said that limiting the “indirect funding” for costs such as buildings, utilities, and support staff to a 15% cap was designed to free up more money to allocate directly to researchers. He repeated the government's claim that there is.
“I want to be clear about one thing at first, this isn't cutting grants,” he said. “This is about changing the slices of the pie. This will be straight to the discretion of the executive.”
The lawyers seeking to stop the cut said that holding indirect funds to a 15% limit across the board is optional and is the standard for challenging institutional decisions. They argued that institutions of different sizes naturally have different needs when negotiating with the government, and that it was unreasonable to adapt to the 15% maximum.
“A lot of this is driven by economies of scale, right?” one lawyer said. “The bigger the facility, the bigger the building, the more projects can be accommodated within that one building. The ratio of direct or indirect costs will change,” she said.
