←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
450 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
carbocation ◴[03 Apr 25 13:17 UTC] No.43569175[source]▶
So far the fight/not fight decisions can be predicted in advanced based on whether an institution has a medical center with NIH grants.
replies(3): >>43569260 #>>43569513 #>>43569620 #
drooby ◴[03 Apr 25 13:49 UTC] No.43569620[source]▶
He states in the interview that Wesleyan has NIH grants. They are preparing to let scientists go if it comes to it.
replies(1): >>43569745 #
carbocation ◴[03 Apr 25 13:56 UTC] No.43569745[source]▶
Wesleyan does not have a medical center and according to the NIH’s public reporting, they have under $2 million in NIH grants, compared to $600 million for Columbia. (Edited from $400 million, which is the value cut.)

Wesleyan has a $250 million operating budget, so the (from what REPORTER indicates) $1.6 million in NIH funding represents 0.6% of their budget. In contrast, the $600 million in NIH funding to Columbia represents about 10% of its $6 billion operating budget.

So both in terms of absolute numbers and relative numbers, the NIH contributions to Wesleyan are de minimis.

replies(1): >>43574081 #
insane_dreamer ◴[03 Apr 25 19:15 UTC] No.43574081[source]▶
That makes a strong case for academic institutions not being substantially dependent on government research dollars.
replies(4): >>43575264 #>>43576448 #>>43579787 #>>43584246 #
1. kjkjadksj ◴[03 Apr 25 22:54 UTC] No.43576448{3}[source]▶
What do you think that 10% of budget is paying for that the university is spending on? It's more or less paying for the building and all that goes into it for the research that the NIH called for grant proposals to happen in. This is the entire idiocy about indirect benefits. Yes, paying for the building is not spending money directly on research. But you can't exactly do lab work without a lab building you know.