Frederica Freyberg:
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.

Robert Golden:
It’s a pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
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?

Robert Golden:
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.

Frederica Freyberg:
So UW lists those costs again as being 55.5% of its research expenditures. What does that go toward?

Robert Golden:
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.

Frederica Freyberg:
So is it possible to reduce those costs to 15% and if forced, what goes?

Robert Golden:
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.

Frederica Freyberg:
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?

Robert Golden:
Anybody who has been in academics, anybody who has been in research, would never use the word bloated. 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.

Frederica Freyberg:
What research is happening right now that would be hurt?

Robert Golden:
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.

Frederica Freyberg:
What are some of the kind of famous breakthroughs found through research at UW-Madison?

Robert Golden:
Well, in fact, one of the very first medications for cancer treatment, 5-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.

Frederica Freyberg:
So the cuts are currently blocked, as we mentioned. What measure of solace is that?

Robert Golden:
Well, it’s just a temporary reprieve. We do hope — you have to be hopeful in order to be in academics 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.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Dr. Robert Golden, thanks very much.

Robert Golden:
Thank you.