>> Judge Crawford, thanks for your time.
>> Thank you so much, Zach. >> In other news, a Trump
administration policy to limit the overhead expenses of medical
research has powerhouse research universities like UW-Madison
reeling. Most medical research is funded by the National
Institutes for health. The new policy would limit NIH funding
for indirect costs to 15%, far below the 55.5% overhead costs
at Madison. The cut is currently blocked by a federal court. UW
School of Medicine and Public Health Dean Robert Golden is
here to describe the implications. And doctor, thanks
very much for being here. >> It's a pleasure.
>> So what would the loss of $65 million, which is what I
understand. It is a year by way of cuts to these indirect costs
mean to research at UW-Madison. >> This would be devastating.
This would be apocalyptic. This would mean that we would have to
dramatically scale back and probably end really important
research, going from the bench to the bedside, into the
community in areas like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and
neurologic illnesses. >> So UW lists those costs again
as being 55.5% of its research expenditures. What what does
that go toward? >> Well, here's one way to think
about it. It's Valentine's Day, and I'm going to cook dinner for
Shannon to celebrate when I go out and buy the groceries, the
eggs and the cheese for a quiche. Those are direct costs,
but I need to have a refrigerator to keep them safe.
I need to be paying my electric bills in order to have the
cookware work. And so the indirect costs are literally
freezers that literally keep things safe for both clinical as
well as pre-clinical research. And they are essential.
Otherwise the food goes bad and you can't prepare dinner.
>> So is it possible to reduce those costs to 15%? And if
forced, what goes? >> Well, the infrastructure goes
our equipment becomes old and not replaced. New buildings are
not built. Renovations for both equipment and the actual
buildings are not there. The staff who are required to fill
out all the forms for the federal government, ensuring
that our people in the labs are safe cannot be kept on. So it
would be absolutely devastating. >> And yet it's being made out
as bloated, administrative expenditures to pad the books on
the backs of taxpayers. What's your response to that?
>> Anybody who has been in academics, anybody who has been
in research, would never use a shoestring. Living on the edge,
funding already is so competitive and so low that
every day, every investigator is looking for more efficient ways
for her to keep her research going.
>> What research is happening right now that would be hurt?
>> Oh, we have important clinical trials in cancer, for
example, for patients who have failed to respond to
conventional treatments. These are important not simply for the
science, but for those individual patients. We have new
promising treatments that have gone from basic discoveries into
practice, looking at potential new therapies for blinding
illness. We have a lot of research that really focuses in
on asthma and childhood asthma in particular, nationally
renowned research. All of this, including the laboratory basic
science that leads to new therapeutics, as well as the
clinical trials looking for safety and effectiveness, would
be at serious risk. >> What are some of the kind of
famous breakthroughs found through research at UW-Madison?
>> Well, in fact, one of the very first medications for
cancer treatment, five fluorouracil, was discovered
right here. We have also had amazing technological
breakthroughs with TomoTherapy, a sophisticated way of doing
imaging that not only has helped countless patients worldwide,
but has led to spin off companies, it's built up our
economy. There are so many exciting new breakthroughs going
on, but they build on a tradition that has been present
here ever since the founding of the NIH.
>> So the cuts are currently blocked, as we mentioned. What
measure of solace is that? >> Well, it's just a temporary
reprieve. We do hope you have to be hopeful in order to be an
academic. Nowadays, that patient voices, voices of reason will
lead to a more than temporary restraint. It's not to say that
our system is perfect. It's one of the best in the world. But
there might be ways to continue what's already happening, to
look for the most efficient ways that we can continue to invest
in research so that we're investing in the health of
people and populations. people and populations.