In article <33A9B6EE.2114 at nospamsalk.edu>, forsburg at nospamsalk.edu wrote:
> I'd love to see it, but it isn't simple. For example, those of
> us on soft money need the equivalent of an extra grant to pay for
> salary and benefits. That's the problem with capped grants like
> the NIH R29 , which requires 50% effort and caps at $70,000.
> Once I put 50% of my salary and benefits on that grant, there
> isn't money left to pay a student or a tech. But I'd be in favor
> of a sliding cap that took soft salaries into account.
Consider the argument that soft-money institutions need to put-up or
shut-up. If the institution is not willing to support the research
effort, should the government or other funding agencies cover the entire
Good science is done many places, not just the 'elite' institutions such
as Salk and Vanderbilt which strive for 100% salary recovery.
A similar argument can be made for indirect. At one time in the late 80s,
Harvard was attempting to negotiate an indirect rate of 100%.
Fortunately, this did not happen.