Apr
13
Corruption in the Scientific Research Industry
“Indirects are just ways for wealthy academic hospitals to pocket money that their investigators won and then create slush for those who are incapable of getting funded on their own. It’s a huge grift and great place for cuts.” — David Whelan, a healthcare consultant and former healthcare writer for Forbes
Last week, I wrote about “Trump, Cancer Research, and the NIH”, and I indicated that I might do a follow-up on the issue of grant monies and the wasteful, fraudulent use of “overhead” funds. This article is that follow-up, and the emphasis will involve the National Institutes of Health (NIH). If you haven’t read last week’s piece, you might want to do so, ‘cuz there is some information there that serves as background info to this one.
But, there is something else I want to clear up before proceeding. I used to think — and maybe you do, too — that “indirect costs” (aka “overhead”) are taken out of the original grant amount. So, for example, you are awarded $100,000 for your research project, but you can allocate up to X% (maybe 20-30%) of that amount for overhead costs. However, as I recently learned, the overhead percentage is a separately awarded amount. So, in our example, you would get the $100,000 for the research-specific expenses, but then another $30,000 (or whatever) would also go to the facility housing the work to cover “indirect costs.”
In my earlier post, I quoted what one doctor had to say about Trump’s recent order that “indirect costs” for federally-funded research be limited to 15%. Here is another:
“If that money is cut to 15%, what that means is there’s actually going to be more grants given out to do science. You get more money back to the NIH to give out more science.” — Dr. Vinay Prasad, hematologist-oncologist and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California
Prasad explained that “sweetheart deals” are made whereby universities and research institutes get funds for “indirect costs” that aren’t even needed. He cited an example of one institution that has negotiated receipt of 57%, regardless.
“[L]et’s say I do the same $100,000 project, but my project is we’re going to analyze genomic sequences from an online repository. So, I just have a laptop… but they still get the $57,000 even though there’s literally no space being given to this person. There’s no bench, there’s no desk, there’s nothing.”
The Fox News article quoted above came out in mid-Feb. 2025. Early this month (Apr. 2025), a similar article was published at The Daily Signal and authored by Isaiah Hankel, PhD, a three-time bestselling author and the CEO of Overqualified.com. Here are a few of the points that this self-described whistleblower made:
o One of the most damning indictments against the NIH is the reproducibility crisis…. In a landmark study by Dr. Glenn Begley, only 11% of oncology studies that were reviewed could be replicated — meaning that 89% of these supposedly groundbreaking cancer studies were essentially worthless.
o False leads misdirect entire fields, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and delaying real medical breakthroughs.
o The problem is exacerbated by the complicity of major academic journals. If a study aligns with a prevailing political narrative, it often gets published regardless of scientific rigor. [I touched on this in another blogpost sometime ago.] Nowhere was this clearer than in the handling of COVID-19’s origins.
o The NIH’s grant distribution system is a financial disaster. I saw firsthand how NIH grants — often exceeding a million dollars each — are handed out to principal investigators who have no training in financial or personnel management…. Lab managers (often research assistants with no financial expertise) oversee massive budgets with little to no oversight. The result? Expensive lab equipment gathering dust, unnecessary purchases of antibodies and reagents, and a total lack of accountability.
o What’s worse, principal investigators often manipulate the system to justify continued funding. One of the most common fraudulent tactics is using old data — research conducted before receiving the grant — to fabricate progress…. Even when fraud is exposed, punishment is nonexistent. [Two examples were given.]
All this is what leads Dr. Hankel to say (and others echo),
“[A]fter years inside the machine, I have come to a sobering conclusion: The NIH is fundamentally broken and morally corrupted. Corruption, waste, and fraud are not occasional lapses but systemic failures. The agency must be gutted and reformed if we are to salvage scientific integrity…. The American people deserve better than a corrupt, self-serving bureaucracy that prioritizes its own survival over genuine scientific advancement.”
Between DOGE and the new NIH Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, I think we will likely see a continued overhaul of the “machine” under the auspices of the Trump administration. I’m all for it.
