As a follow-up to the post below on old memories, do you remember when, seeing that the doctor treating you had a Harvard diploma on his wall, you relaxed? Those days are over.

Harvard Medical School, Citing Trump NIH Cuts, Encourages Distressed Students To 'Take Advantage' of 'Countway Cuddles' Pet Therapy

Trump's policy places a cap on 'indirect' research funding used to pay for energy bills, admin salaries, and, in one infamous case, a yacht

…. [Medical School Dean George P. Daley] (not to be confused with professor of urology I.P. Daily) went on to encourage students, faculty members, and researchers to "take advantage of the well-being resources available to members of the Harvard community." He linked to a page that touts Harvard-funded services like a "24/7 mental health support line" and the "Countway Cuddles pet therapy program," which hosts "pet-therapy sessions" meant to "combat burnout, stress, and anxiety." Attendees can "pet and play" with one of six "therapy animals": "Sophie the Golden Retriever," "Rudy the Golden Retriever," "Sasha the Black Lab," "Bodhi the Yellow Lab/Golden Retriever Mix," "Bao the miniature Goldendoodle," and "Hermie the therapy guinea pig." The program's website includes a guide on the "Right Way to Pet a Dog."

You can stop reading here; if you’re curious what all the fuss is about, though, the Free Beacon article explains it:

The NIH's Feb. 7 memo sets a 15 percent cap on "indirect costs" the federal government agrees to fund when it awards a research grant to a university. Under the system, a school that receives a $1 million grant would receive an additional $150,000 to pay for indirect costs associated with the research.

Before the change, individual universities negotiated their own reimbursement rates for indirect costs. Those rates averaged between 27 and 28 percent, according to the NIH, though some schools enjoyed much higher rates. Harvard Medical School's previous rate sat at 69.5 percent, meaning it would receive nearly $700,000 to fund the indirect costs stemming from a $1 million grant.

The grant money covers costs directly associated with a project, like equipment and researcher salaries. The indirect funding covers more general research expenses, like energy bills, computers, waste disposal, building maintenance, and, more controversially, administrative salaries and budgets.

The NIH memo calls those costs "difficult to oversee" and specifically aims at administrative spending. "The United States should have the best medical research in the world," it states. "It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead."

The memo also notes that private foundations reimburse indirect costs at much lower rates than those previously offered by the federal government. The Gates Foundation, according to the memo, maintains a 10 percent cap on indirect costs, while the Rockefeller Foundation's cap sits at 15 percent. Those foundations pay lower indirect costs, according to the scientific journal Nature, "because historically, universities have had their costs covered by the federal government."

Should the Trump administration prove successful in its bid to end that practice—the new NIH policy is the subject of an ongoing legal challenge—Harvard will have plenty of money to cover indirect costs.

Its endowment, managed by Harvard's in-house hedge fund, Harvard Management Co., is valued at more than $53 billion. In fiscal year 2024, the school's operating expenses totaled $6.4 billion, a 9 percent increase from the year prior that was "driven primarily by higher compensation costs, increased spending on information technology services, and the ongoing maintenance of our campus," according to the Harvard Financial Administration.

Even with those increased costs, Harvard ended the last fiscal year with a $45 million budget surplus. The medical school received more than $171 million in NIH funding during the same period.

Universities have a history of generously interpreting the federal rules surrounding indirect costs. In the 1980s, Stanford University infamously used indirect funding to cover luxuries for then-president Donald Kennedy, including $6,000 for cedar lining in his closets, $2,000 a month for flowers, and $1,000 a month in laundry services. Stanford also used the funds to cover the depreciation of a 72-foot yacht that was donated to the university's sailing program to entertain donors.

Kennedy maintained that the yacht spending was a mistake (federal rules prevent schools from using indirect funds for entertainment), though he defended billing the government for the maintenance of his home, arguing that those expenses were permissible. Stanford repaid the federal government for the superfluous costs, and Kennedy resigned over the scandal in 1991. The University of Pennsylvania responded to the ordeal by voluntarily ceasing its use of indirect funds to maintain its own presidential home. The school said such expenses were legal but widely seen as "not proper," the Associated Press reported at the time.

The Obama administration also attempted to curtail indirect cost spending, having proposed an unspecified flat reimbursement rate for all institutions in 2012. Some economists praised the move, though the Association of American Universities—which represents Harvard, MIT, and other top research institutions—successfully lobbied to kill it.

"Harvard is taking the government to the cleaners," Richard Vedder, an Ohio University economics professor who leads the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, said at the time.