I’m not accusing any particular organization of fraud. I am rejecting the notion that just because one institution historically receives funds that those funds were put to good use.
I understand how grants and overhead rates work. It’s an embarrassment.
"you're not literally saying fraud, but you're also not NOT saying it's fraud"
Serious accusations need serious evidence. I'm not a fan of this sowing of doubt without a solid basis to back it up. That's very much the DOGE modus operandi, and it's a lazy and dangerous form of argumentation. I'll call it out wherever I can.
You're just saying "thing bad" and expecting agreement without putting any legwork in. The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
> The Salk Institute's overhead rate, IIRC, is 90%. Yet, they keep getting funds, so they're doing something right.
I do not agree with this statement. Take from that what you will.
> The onus is on the accuser, not the accused.
In criminal law I agree. When it comes to budgeting I do not. The onus is on every program to prove every year that they’re worth funding. I don’t accept the notion that just because something was funded in the past that it was wise then and that it’s wise to continue to fund.
So when someone says “this org has a 90% indirect cost rate and keeps getting funded” I do not think “they must be doing something right”. I instead think “wow they better have a frickin spectacular argument as to how that is possibly justifiable, and I’d bet $3.50 they don’t”.
