_6.jpg?w=150&resize=150,150&ssl=1 "The potential effect of Leiurus Quinquestriatus Scorpion Venom as an anti-parasitic drug for TricHinello")
As a professor of UC Santa Barbara, I have examined the effects of and seashore pollution solutions, including speps oil, spills and offshore DDT. I started my career by investigating the bacteria and hydrocarbon gas in the ocean, looking at the unusual ability of germs that smoke from the bottom of the sea floor. The required fund comes from the greatest principal business in the world, the National Science Foundation.
My research is esoteric, or so my in-laws (and all) think, to 2010, if the deep shore of the rig off louisifore is from Louisiana. It was a favorite disaster in the Gulf, and suddenly my requested work of esoteric demands. Additional support from the National Science Foundation allows me to go outside the beach to help think about what is happening with that petroleum in deep oceans. I have helped clarify, contentment and predict what will happen next to the concerns of the Gulf states, the original Architect of the National Science Foundation.
Now the famous business scientist enables my research and is more than self-disaster, thanks to actions and suggestions from Trump Administration. Spend the targeted cuts of discovery centers such as Harvard and Columbia, and gossip California public universities are nextThe most obvious threats of research are redgets in the DRACONIAN budget proposed by almost all scientists to go to the US Steps to the Seviect Science of the US A reduced severe and abruptly to take many years and seizure in the sea and study, and more.
But a more subtle and the same tyranny cut is started – to fund for indirect costs enabled universities and other institutions to host research. It seems difficult rally for indirect costs, sometimes called “overhead” or “facilities and administration.” But in their core, these funds facilitate science.
For example, indirect costs don’t pay my salary, but they pay for small ticket items like my lab coat and gogge tickets like my laboratory space. They don’t pay for chromatograph I used in my experiments, but they pay for electricity to run it. They do not pay for the sample tubes that feed my chromatograph, but they support the buying staff and accepts that helped me take them. They do not pay for the chemical reagents I have placed in sample tubes, but they support the safety disposal of used reagents as well as health staff and safety facilitates my safe chemical use.
They do not pay the salary for my research assistants, but they support the unit of the human resource I have hired. They do not pay for international travel to present my research abroad, but they cover an order following someone I cannot influence a foreign entity.
In other words, indirect costs support the deep bench to support the characters and services that make me, the scientist, focus on discovery. Without that services, my research cenders collapsed, and new discoveries.
My indirect amount of cost is set up every few years between my institution and the federal government. Negotiation is based on difficult data showing the actual and acceptable research-related costs that end in the institution, with cost-to-cost, often tied to federal mandates. By this strong and itserative mechanism, the overhead rate of my institution – as a percentage of direct research costs – recently adjusted by 56.5%. I wish it was less, but that was the real cost of running a research project.
The current model for calculating indirect costs has errors and can be improved. But reduced by 15% – as required by Trump administration – harms scientists and institutions. All functions I trust in conducting science and training of future workers can see striking cuts. Three quarters of my local support support research will crush. Costs are indirect, but effects can be immediately and directly.
Furthermore we all suffer for a long time because of the discoveries, bursts and progress in the change in life we fail.
The power of the United States science is easy. Before the start of the National Science Foundation, my grandfather should learn German for his Biochemistry PhD in Penn State because Germany is scientific leader. If the President’s efforts to cut directly and indirect expenses end, it can be China tomorrow. So now we need to remind our chosen officials paying US scientific advistances and that’s a mess and punishment for risky to the damage to it.
David L. Valentine is a professor of marine microbiology and Geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara.
Insights
La Times Insights Gives AI-Ginaleans analysis of Venters in Voices to offer all points in view. Views cannot be found in any news articles.
view
Views
The following content becomes AI run by confusion. Los Angeles editorial staff do not create or edit content.
Ideas stated in the piece
- The article contributes indirect costs (overhead) is important for research infrastructure, covering crurtical expensies, withdrawal equipment, without the process of management, without scientific discovery processes(1).
- This is argued that the Trump Capping Capping Capping Capping Cost costs 15% can provide spack support and developmental systems(2)(3).
- The piece is warned proudly proposed budget cutting to the NSF – 57% world and 75% of the ‘World Innovation world in the country like Chinese(3).
- It emphasized that these cuts ignore the actual research expenses (eg, UC Santa Barbara’s 56.5% rate) and life changes, and life progresses “(1).
Different views of the subject
- The Trump Administration Frames Indirect Costs AS Excessive “Overhead” Unrelated to Core Research, justifying the 15% Cap as a cost-saving measure to redirect funds toward prioritized fields like ai and biotechnology(1)(2).
- Officials assumed that the budget focuses on resources of “National Prayority” such as nuclear activity, all areas of science “are unstoppable under fiscal restraints(1)(3).
- The administration defends against the fund research on “mischievous” or “disinform(1).
- Patigunbat battle that decreases force universities in streamling operations, although federal judges prevent similar caps to other agencies (eg in the energy department)(2).
