The Trump administration’s plan to cut billions of dollars in research spending by eliminating indirect cost reimbursements would devastate university science, especially at public institutions, experts warned. [This is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s leading higher education publication. It is presented here under an agreement with University World News.] The US secretary for health and human services, Tom Price, told Congress this week that the idea is to save taxpayers money while giving them the same amount of research activity. Indirect cost payments are funds spent on "something other than the research that’s being done," Dr Price told a House of Representatives subcommittee on health appropriations on Wednesday. But university representatives made clear on Thursday that it simply does not work that way. Indirect costs reflect the legitimate expenses of providing scientists with labs and complying with a host of essential services that somehow will still need to be paid, the representatives said. Under current law, a researcher who receives a federal grant to conduct research cannot simply be billed by his or her university for those costs, said Tobin L Smith, vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, which represents major research institutions. And universities absolutely won't force students to cover the difference, Smith said. "The reality is we don't have other revenue sources to pay for those things, because let's face it, we are not going to rob tuition to pay for those costs," he said. "It just is not going to happen." It's not clear what universities would do if Congress actually accepted the administration's proposal to end indirect cost payments, said David Kennedy, director of costing policy and studies at the Council on Governmental Relations, another association of research universities and affiliated medical centres. State institutions probably would suffer first and hardest, Kennedy said, because they would have virtually no ab