• dr-robot@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    20 hours ago

    In all honesty though, 60%+ overheads from a university is incredibly high. To an extent that shows that there is a large amount of management and administrative staff not contributing directly to the work. I’m not in medicine, but in the EU projects I’m in only 0-25% of overheads are funded. Though, I can imagine medicine requiring more than the hard sciences.

    • eran_morad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      60%+ is what it takes to lease buildings and pay salaries in NYC, Boston, SF, LA, etc. So, are you okay with wrecking science in those cities?

      Have you any concept of how many people would be suffering or dead if Boston’s scientists were flipping burgers instead of making discoveries?

      1st pig organ transplant. 1st anesthesia. 1st live donor organ transplant. GLP1 agonists. Enbrel. Gene editing. Human genome. All out of Boston. Off the top of my head.

      • sus@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        Leases would show as zero on the balance sheet if the government owned their own buildings. But of course someone decided that was “against the free market” so now the government cannot own anything in the name of “efficiency”

    • straightjorkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      60% makes sense when you consider something like LIGO, or other real-estate heavy physics experimentation grounds, like a neutrino detector.

      • eran_morad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The cuts are from whatever to 15%. Typically, in expensive cities that are world-class scientific hubs, the indirect rate is over 60%.