NIH, for those that don't know, is comprised on institutes such as the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, etc, etc. There are 27 institutes and centers that make up the NIH. It provides the vast majority of basic research funding which primarily occurs at universities.
So, in FY2024, Pitt received $661.2 million in research funding just from the NIH. This was the sixth highest total dollar amount of any of the 2,845 institutions and companies receiving NIH funding in 2024. These awards are primarily all peer reviewed and competitively awarded, with an average grant application success rate of ~20%. That means only 1/5 grants are funded when averaged across all of NIH (although it varies by specific research institute). These research grants are considered the most prestigious research funding awards to receive because they are so difficult and competitive to win.
Research grants and contracts at Pitt are the largest source of operating revenue in Pitt's budget at 39%.
NIH funding is the large part of Pitt's R&D funding, comprising about 55% of Pitt's total R&D expenditures.
(for more about Pitt research, see the video embedded on this page: https://pittresearchannualreport.com/)
Here's the news. Today, NIH has just announced they are capping their indirect rates at 15%.
Indirect rates are the amount of overhead a university or other institution takes off the top of research grants awarded to faculty at the institution. These rates are negotiated regularly between the institutions and the federal government every couple years. Indirects help maintain the facilities, equipment, utilities, biohazard disposal, outfit and man the core facilities (like imaging, mass spec, glass/machine shops that are shared across labs and departments)...all the sorts of things that it takes to run labs and conduct research and stay competitive in this space with other top 10 research universities. But the success of Pitt faculty in obtaining this funding is why Pitt has kept investing in these pursuits, such as the just opened Assembly on Baum Blvd largely devoted to researching new immuno therapies for cancer and Pitt's current construction of BioForge in Hazelwood purposed to develop new precision medicines. It is often stated that indirects received by a university do not actually cover all of the costs of running these facilities and labs.
Pitt's current indirect rate that it takes from extramural funding is 59% for on-campus research. That compares to 55% at Harvard. 56% at Michigan. 62% at the University of California schools and Penn. 64% at Johns Hopkins. Basically, Pitt is right in the normal range for peer research schools.
What the indirect rate cut means for Pitt is this: in 2024, the 59% of what Pitt's researchers were awarded from NIH means Pitt took ~$390 million to help run its biomedical research facilities and maintain their operations, etc. Under the new cap, Pitt would have only received $99 million. That would hypothetically be a loss, in one year's time, of $291 million.
How this will change the equation for Pitt and other research universities in pushing new biomedical R&D is yet to be known, but it is doubtful to be positive. How it will effect the bottom line of the university is also unknown, but just to be clear, the $291 million difference described above is $85m more the entire Commonwealth appropriation to the university in FY 2024. It is also more than Pitt earns from its endowment and other investments each year.
Whether you agree with capping indirects or not, and I would argue something needed to be done about their continually increasing rates, this is a very sudden, very big reduction that could substantially impact the University's overall budget and fiscal health, and in particular, its research plant where it derives a big part of its academic reputation. It could signal some tough days ahead for Pitt, so for people that care about the university, I thought they might want to be aware.
So, in FY2024, Pitt received $661.2 million in research funding just from the NIH. This was the sixth highest total dollar amount of any of the 2,845 institutions and companies receiving NIH funding in 2024. These awards are primarily all peer reviewed and competitively awarded, with an average grant application success rate of ~20%. That means only 1/5 grants are funded when averaged across all of NIH (although it varies by specific research institute). These research grants are considered the most prestigious research funding awards to receive because they are so difficult and competitive to win.
Research grants and contracts at Pitt are the largest source of operating revenue in Pitt's budget at 39%.
NIH funding is the large part of Pitt's R&D funding, comprising about 55% of Pitt's total R&D expenditures.
(for more about Pitt research, see the video embedded on this page: https://pittresearchannualreport.com/)
Here's the news. Today, NIH has just announced they are capping their indirect rates at 15%.
Indirect rates are the amount of overhead a university or other institution takes off the top of research grants awarded to faculty at the institution. These rates are negotiated regularly between the institutions and the federal government every couple years. Indirects help maintain the facilities, equipment, utilities, biohazard disposal, outfit and man the core facilities (like imaging, mass spec, glass/machine shops that are shared across labs and departments)...all the sorts of things that it takes to run labs and conduct research and stay competitive in this space with other top 10 research universities. But the success of Pitt faculty in obtaining this funding is why Pitt has kept investing in these pursuits, such as the just opened Assembly on Baum Blvd largely devoted to researching new immuno therapies for cancer and Pitt's current construction of BioForge in Hazelwood purposed to develop new precision medicines. It is often stated that indirects received by a university do not actually cover all of the costs of running these facilities and labs.
Pitt's current indirect rate that it takes from extramural funding is 59% for on-campus research. That compares to 55% at Harvard. 56% at Michigan. 62% at the University of California schools and Penn. 64% at Johns Hopkins. Basically, Pitt is right in the normal range for peer research schools.
What the indirect rate cut means for Pitt is this: in 2024, the 59% of what Pitt's researchers were awarded from NIH means Pitt took ~$390 million to help run its biomedical research facilities and maintain their operations, etc. Under the new cap, Pitt would have only received $99 million. That would hypothetically be a loss, in one year's time, of $291 million.
How this will change the equation for Pitt and other research universities in pushing new biomedical R&D is yet to be known, but it is doubtful to be positive. How it will effect the bottom line of the university is also unknown, but just to be clear, the $291 million difference described above is $85m more the entire Commonwealth appropriation to the university in FY 2024. It is also more than Pitt earns from its endowment and other investments each year.
Whether you agree with capping indirects or not, and I would argue something needed to be done about their continually increasing rates, this is a very sudden, very big reduction that could substantially impact the University's overall budget and fiscal health, and in particular, its research plant where it derives a big part of its academic reputation. It could signal some tough days ahead for Pitt, so for people that care about the university, I thought they might want to be aware.
Last edited:
