11 hours ago
2
Donald Trump’s nominee to run the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, told senators he was committed to ensuring scientists “have the resources they need” – even as the $48bn agency he hopes to lead has become a focus of the administration’s ideological war and cost-cutting efforts.
At a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Bhattacharya made a pitch for free scientific inquiry and an examination of the chronic disease epidemic, now a cornerstone of Republican health rhetoric, while hoping to serve in an administration that has frightened scientists into self-censorship.
“Science should be an engine for freedom – knowledge and freedom. It shouldn’t be pushing mandates for vaccines,” said Bhattacharya, referring to pandemic-era mandates, and articulating a vein of libertarian thinking that has rejuvenated Republican health rhetoric in the time since. “If science is a force for freedom and knowledge, it will have universal support.”
Bhattacharya ignored the Republican party’s role in sowing distrust of the scientific establishment, argued “good data” would change minds and, in the words of one senator, strained credulity by asserting the US president would not ask him to do anything illegal.
For a man whose pandemic-era rise was built on questioning authority, some assertions landed between wishful thinking and willful blindness. But for all of Bhattacharya’s remarkable answers, dissent was muted.
Some in academia now see Bhattacharya as the least bad option to run the NIH. And, after confirming Robert F Kennedy Jr, the nation’s leading vaccine critic, to lead the department of health, there is little doubt Republicans have the votes.
“Maybe I’m naive, senator,” Bhattacharya said in response to a question about vaccine skepticism, “but I believe very fundamentally that research, if replicable, if done right, is so persuasive will move people to take actions.”
Bhattacharya was at one time a low-profile researcher at Stanford University, himself receiving $3.7m in NIH grants, according to an agency database. His star rose among conservatives when he advocated against lockdowns in 2020. He was ostracized by the scientific establishment and blacklisted by Twitter – only to be invited to the platform’s headquarters by the billionaire Elon Musk.
In turn, he became a darling of the right: hosting his own podcast devoted to questioning medical consensus, working as an expert witness in courts (even if courts did not always find him convincing) and often appearing on Catholic radio programs.
But Bhattacharya’s pitch for free scientific inquiry is in striking conflict with the administration’s actions. His nomination comes as the research world has been rattled by mass firings, funding freezes, censorship and a measles outbreak that claimed the first American life in nearly a decade.
Some of the most pressing questions came from the Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana who has steadfastly refused to engage in the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories peddled by some colleagues.
“There is now a child who died of a vaccine preventable disease in Texas,” Cassidy said about the measles outbreak.
Would the nominee spend even more taxpayer dollars to research a link between vaccines and autism when the idea has been “exhaustively” debunked?
“I don’t think there’s a link between the [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine and autism,” said Bhattacharya. “The only reason I’m not saying wholeheartedly yes” – that federal dollars could be better spent elsewhere – is “there are people who might disagree with me.”
“There are people who disagree that the world is round,” Cassidy retorted. “People still think Elvis is alive.”
“My sense, my inclination is to give people good data,” said Bhattacharya. “That’s how you address those concerns.”
“I’m not sure at what end point we say we have good data,” said Cassidy, appearing unsatisfied.
At the NIH alone, the Musk-led “department of government efficiency” (Doge) fired roughly 1,200 workers. Bhattacharya characterized this as “personnel decisions” to which he was not privy. The administration has also frozen grant funding in a probably illegal scheme, is still gumming up orders to thaw funding and is seeking to cut $4bn from grants that primarily go to universities and colleges.
Trump touted his campaign to end “the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government” in his state of the union speech only the evening before – a policy that in practical terms is an ideological review of NIH grants.
“I wasn’t involved in any decision making at the NIH up to this point,” was a common refrain for Bhattacharya when questioned about whether he would protect research funding.
More broadly, the funding freezes and proposed cuts have sown chaos in the research world – academic institutions have frozen hiring, postgraduate researchers are struggling to find placements amid budget cuts, and delayed funding has many researchers worried their projects are on the verge of shuttering.
Arguably the most pointed question of the hearing came from the Democratic senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire: “If directed by the president to take action that would break the law, would you follow the law or would you follow the president’s directive?”
“Senator, I don’t believe the president will ever ask me to break the law,” said Bhattacharya.
Hassan said: “Well, that strains credulity given, especially the last few weeks, and it’s a disappointing answer.”
