David A. Broniatowski

I’m excited to tell you all about a recent paper (psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi…) published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, jointly with @PedramHosseini , @EthanVPorter , and @thomasjwood !

_ _ _ _ |🔥|_ _ _ 🔥

This study—conducted by TRAILS researchers Lorien Abroms (@lorien_a) and David Broniatowski (@Broniatowski)—was published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (@JMIR_). Read the paper: jmir.org/2025/1/e66896

Happy to see our paper out on @SciReports! We introduce a statistical method for detecting coordination and apply it to Facebook, using 11.2 million link posts shared by 16k pages that discussed US politics in 2021. nature.com/articles/s4159…

🚨 Two new post-docs at @GWtweets!! Both affiliated with @GWIDDP, one will be more computational, the other more experimental. Links: gwu.jobs/postings/119777 and gwu.jobs/postings/119779 Spread the word!

Learn about China’s strategic goals for data assetization, the role of state-led data marketplaces, & how these efforts fit into the country’s broader AI ambitions at a webinar moderated @AaronsonSusan, co-PI @trails_ai & director @DataGovHub. Learn more: datagovhub.elliott.gwu.edu/calendar_event…

TRAILS member Hernisa Kacorri (@HernisaKacorri) is part of a team @INFOCollegeUMD working to advance the safety of autonomous vehicles by capturing new data sets of how blind pedestrians move in urban settings. trails.umd.edu/news/autonomou…

@JohnWAyersPhD You misunderstood the GAO report. GAO wasn't trying to get that information because it reviewed the agency's process not university accounting. That doesn’t mean the accounting doesn’t exist. Talk to your university budget staff so they can explain to you how this process works.

I look forward to seeing accounting on what indirects paid at any aggregation. GAO didn't have access to it and I have never seen a report of any kind that says indirects were 10% on power, 5% on x salary, etc. again you keep telling me this accounting exists. Just show me. Surely it's public since there are public agencies. 🤷🏼‍♂️

All of David's arguments are plausible but to have an impactful discussion we need rigorous accounting of how indirects are spent. There are only two empirical truths about the indirect debate: 1. There is no formal accounting of how indirects are used. 2. The use of indirects, if accounted, will vary tremendously by institution. For the former, current NIH policy is that indirects cannot be tracked! The policy is literally we do not know what the money is spent for and it is impossible to know. Whats so hard about saying X% of an indirect is used to pay for x,y,z salaries, or x,y,z facilities, etc.? For the latter consider my indirect experience at a few jobs (when most academics have 1 or maybe 2): At one of my jobs 10% of the indirects flowed back to researchers as discretionary funds. We regardless of PI status were provided accounting services, access to shared admin, and space separate from our offices to work. At another job I was told that I should use direct funds to pay someone to complete required budgetary forms on the grant, pay for wifi/desks/computers, and before I could hire anyone, like an RA, I would need to hire a personal admin first to do that single task. In all cases my overhead was a required direct cost that indirects were not being used for. What were the indirects used for? A tiny portion of the indirects go back not to the researcher but their administrator supervisors. The rest goes to I don't know what? At another job I had a similar experience, but was also told while we cannot "legally bill" for "space" I should defer some portion of the grant to "TBD" ghost salaries so that money could be used to pay for my ordinary office. The correct term for this is fraud. I did not participate in these shenanigans and left that last job quickly. The simply reality is this: 1. We need data to assess what indirects pay for. 2. We need to create universal standards for what is minimally required as overhead. 3. We need to create rewards and incentives to enforce responsible use of indirects. If a family member asked me for money I would give it to them. But if they asked for money AND told me they couldn't tell me what it was used for and it was impossible to estimate, I would be annoyed but likely still give them the money. Why? Bc they're family. The NIH isn't our Daddy. Tax payers, PIs, funders, etc. should be required to know how indirects are used and what ROI they engender.

@JohnWAyersPhD The GAO report highlights gaps in agency oversight, not missing accounting by universities. IDCs are negotiated, capped, and reviewed based on actual costs. This misinterpretation once again proves that we need administrative staff who can correctly interpret these policies.

@JohnWAyersPhD That's not how IDCs work (15% or not). Universities submit audited financials to justify IDCs, which fund shared infrastructure so researchers don’t have to budget for internet, admin, lab space, or compliance individually. Breaking it out per grant defeats the whole purpose.

@JohnWAyersPhD Wrong. "Negotiators further review audited financial statements of grantee indirect cost proposals" hhs.gov/about/agencies… Your post actually makes my point for me: Individual PIs are not trained to interpret these laws, which is why we need IDCs to support staff who can.

@Broniatowski Indirects expenses are not tracked or audited. See grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/… grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/…

@JohnWAyersPhD If the goal is to increase transparency, that’s a discussion worth having. But capping indirect costs isn’t a solution—it’s a shortcut that could end up doing more damage than good.

@JohnWAyersPhD If universities can’t afford to cover these essential expenses, individual researchers will be left scrambling to fill the gap, reducing efficiency and productivity. This ultimately hurts science, innovation, and the economy.

Please read and share this excellent FAQ on University indirect costs by my friend @Broniatowski He explains why these funds are essential and a critical investment for research in the United States. linkedin.com/posts/david-br…