President Donald Trump’s pick to be the next Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, spent much of his confirmation hearing Wednesday defending the president’s decision to put a 15% cap on indirect research costs dispersed by the NIH.
Bhattacharya, a physician, Stanford professor of medicine and senior fellow at the university’s Institute for Economic Policy Research, would not explicitly say he disagreed with the cuts, or that, if confirmed, he would step in to stop them. Rather, he said he would ‘follow the law,’ while also investigating the impact of the cuts and ensuring every NIH researcher doing work that advances the health outcomes of Americans has the resources necessary to do their work.
Bhattacharya also laid out a new, decentralized vision for future research at NIH that he said will be aimed at embracing dissenting ideas and transparency, while focusing on research topics that have the best chance at directly benefiting health outcomes of Americans. Bhattacharya added that he wants to rid the agency’s research portfolio of other ‘frivolous’ efforts, that he says do little to directly benefit health outcomes.
‘There’s a lot of distrust about where the money goes because the trust in the public health establishment has collapsed since the pandemic,’ Bhattacharya said. ‘I think transparency regarding indirect costs is absolutely worthwhile. It’s something that universities can fix by working together to make sure that where that money goes is made clear.’
Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Ed Markey of Massachusetts both pressed Bhattacharya specifically about research that looks into health issues that impact minorities — an area Democrats worry could be undermined at the NIH due to Trump’s campaign against the Left’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
‘The health needs of minority populations in this country are a vital priority for me … I want to make sure the research that the NIH does addresses those health needs, and I don’t see anything in the president’s orders that contradicts that, in fact, quite to the contrary,’ Bhattacharya said. ‘What I’ve heard from [Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] and from the president is ‘Let’s make America Healthy,’ meaning all Americans.’
When Alsobrooks cited a project Bhattacharya worked on related to Alzheimer’s disease, which included mentoring ‘diverse’ professionals, he said that his understanding of that part of the project meant mentoring researchers with a diverse set of ideas, not a diverse set of skin colors.
‘I think fundamentally what matters is: Do scientists have an idea that advances the scientific field they’re in?’ Bhattacharya replied. ‘Do they have an idea that ends up addressing the health needs of Americans?’
Bhattacharya acknowledged that ‘identifying’ health disparities among minority groups is important, but emphasized the need for research that drives meaningful outcomes.
Bhattacharya also challenged the premise of a similar line of questioning from Markey, who argued Trump was utilizing ideological flashpoints to ‘slow’ life-saving research.
‘I don’t agree with you, senator, that President Trump is opposed to [speeding up research]. In fact, quite the opposite, he is quite in favor of making America healthy,’ Bhattacharya told Markey. ‘I don’t believe that ideology ought to determine whether one gets research or not.’
In addition to addressing numerous questions from Democrats about Trump’s funding cuts, Bhattacharya also outlined his plans to reform the NIH’s research portfolio during his Wednesday confirmation hearing.
Trump’s NIH nominee said he hopes to focus on cutting-edge research and other ‘big ideas’ as opposed to continuing to put all the federal government’s money into research that doesn’t involve the same ambitious goals. He also briefly spoke about improving the frequency of ‘validation research’ and increasing the number of NIH applications funded for younger investigators.
Concerns from Republicans during the hearing included whether Bhattacharya would continue supporting research investigating the link between vaccines and autism, something Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said has been proven over and over again to have no link, and whether he will permit the continued use of aborted fetal tissue in NIH-funded research.
Bhattacharya agreed with Cassidy that the linkage between autism and vaccines is clear — there isn’t one. However, he acknowledged that others may disagree with him. In line with his commitment to embracing dissenting ideas and promoting free speech in medical research, he suggested that commissioning studies could help the public gain a clearer understanding that no link exists.
On the issue of halting the use of aborted fetal tissue, during Trump’s first term, he banned its use, and Bhattacharya said he would follow the president’s lead on the issue.