PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Brown University has joined a federal lawsuit challenging an action announced on Friday, May 2, by the National Science Foundation to limit indirect cost reimbursements to a 15% rate for its research grants to higher education institutions.
Brown is a named plaintiff in the suit filed on May 5 in Massachusetts federal district court by the Association of American Universities and 13 of its member institutions, including Brown, along with the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. The action is the latest in a series of legal efforts by the University to block federal actions to dramatically cut funding to critical research.
“Federal support for research at Brown enables multi-year projects spanning human health, national security, and emerging areas of science and technology, and we’ll continue our efforts to protect the funding that has long enabled the U.S. to be the global leader in scientific progress and innovation,” Brown University President Christina H. Paxson said. “Reducing this National Science Foundation funding will cause America to lose its global competitive edge in areas such as quantum computing, machine learning, advanced novel engineering materials and biomechanics, today and in the future.”
In a declaration that will be filed this week as part of the lawsuit, Brown’s Vice President for Research Greg Hirth explained that Brown receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) that supports cutting-edge, multi-year research projects across the University. Those projects are helping to solve the most important problems of today, training the next generation of scientists who will maintain the nation’s world-leading position in science, and spurring new discoveries that can help drive a vibrant American economy in the future.
“Without the opportunity to conduct this research, many of the most talented faculty will opt to leave Brown, and likely the United States, in pursuit of what could now become more promising positions elsewhere around the world,” Hirth wrote in the declaration. “This brain-drain will inevitably lead to lost opportunities to develop U.S. intellectual property, advance American security and innovation, create U.S. startup companies, and develop a workforce critical for the science and technical priorities of the current administration.”
Hirth, a professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences who has been on the Brown faculty since 2007, wrote that in Fiscal Year 2024, Brown received $34.4 million in grants to support nearly 250 projects in every scientific discipline represented by the NSF.
The reduced funding would have destructive impacts on a wide range of innovative research at Brown. This includes new X-ray imaging technology that enables research toward better treatments for muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy and nerve injuries; research on robot systems that will have far-reaching impacts in robotic warehousing and manufacturing, self-driving vehicles, autonomous delivery and other fields; and work to advance understanding of the most damaging ground-shaking from earthquakes, which will help enable the improvement of building codes and thus reduce risks from earthquakes.
A reduction in the indirect cost rate would also threaten the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM), which is located at Brown, as well as a program to train the next-generation quantum science workforce — an initiative that has resulted in three pending patents, the development of novel quantum sensing techniques, and new approaches that enable quantum information processing at ambient conditions.
Hirth noted that if — contrary to what Brown has negotiated with the federal government — the indirect cost rate were reduced to 15% for new NSF awards, that would significantly reduce Brown’s anticipated annual indirect cost recovery. For example, applying the 15% rate to the anticipated modified direct costs over the next five years, Brown’s anticipated annual indirect cost recovery would be reduced by $11.25 million.
“This reduction would have deeply damaging effects on Brown’s ability to conduct research from day one,” Hirth wrote. “Many of Brown’s current research projects will be forced to slow down or cease abruptly if Brown must apply for new awards at the 15% indirect cost cap. This will also necessarily and immediately result in staffing reductions across the board.”
Hirth said that like all research-intensive universities, Brown could not simply make up for the resulting funding gap if the NSF indirect cost rate is reduced because the University’s full cost of research is already significantly more than what is covered by sponsored direct costs and indirect cost recovery. In Fiscal Year 2024, for example, Brown’s full cost of research was approximately $395 million, about $100 million more than the combined sponsored direct costs ($224 million) and indirect costs ($70 million) received from the federal government.
There is currently no other identified source of funds that Brown can use to continue supporting the current costs of conducting research, Hirth noted, and the University would have to significantly scale back the amount of research it conducts.
Joint lawsuit is the latest in a series of Brown legal actions
Brown continues its persistence in partnering with its educational associations and other private and public institutions of higher education in advocating in court against federal actions that place research funding in jeopardy.
On Feb. 7, Hirth submitted a declaration in support of a federal court filing by about two dozen state attorneys general seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure the continued flow of research funding from federal agencies. The U.S. district court judge in the case first granted a temporary restraining order and then, on March 6, a preliminary injunction blocking the funding freeze. The ruling is being appealed by the federal administration.
On Feb. 10, Brown joined as a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to halt the implementation of a 15% cap on the amount that institutions of higher education can recover in indirect cost reimbursements from National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants. The U.S. district court judge in the case first issued a preliminary injunction and then, on April 4, issued a permanent injunction barring the NIH from implementing the rate cap. The ruling is being appealed by the federal administration.
On April 14, Brown joined as a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to halt the implementation of a 15% cap on the amount that institutions of higher education can recover in indirect cost reimbursements from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research grants. On April 16, the U.S district court judge in the case issued a temporary restraining order temporarily prohibiting the DOE from putting the rate cap into effect.
In the May 5 lawsuit challenging the NSF funding cuts, Brown and the other plaintiffs described the NSF cuts as identical in key respects to policies of the NIH and DOE that federal courts have already blocked.
“NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons, and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies,” the complaint asserts.
Brown and the other plaintiffs noted that if indirect cost rates are cut to 15%, the effects will be irreparable.
“Vital scientific work will come to a halt, training will be stifled, and the pace of scientific discoveries will slow,” the complaint states. “Progress on national security objectives, such as maintaining strategic advantages in areas like AI and quantum computing, will falter. And because of all this, America’s standing as a world leader in scientific discovery will decline.”
In addition to Brown and the educational associations, the other public and private higher education institutions in the joint lawsuit against NSF are Arizona State University, California Institute of Technology, University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Chicago, Cornell University, University of Illinois, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University.