NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya Speaks to Academic Freedom
Don’t have four hours to listen to the interview? Here are some takeaways.
In National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s recent interview with Andrew Huberman, Bhattacharya offers criticism of current biomedical research models, an optimistic view of the future of the NIH, and a scathing review of academic freedom at Stanford. The lengthy interview is a worthwhile listen for heterodox thinkers, but if you haven’t got four hours to spare, we bring you a few key takeaways.
First, for those who are unfamiliar with the host, Andrew Huberman: Before becoming a podcaster who rubs elbows with the likes of Joe Rogan, Huberman ran his own lab at Stanford School of Medicine’s Department of Neurobiology. He obtained several NIH grants to fund his research in neurobiology and ophthalmology, and has published in high profile journals, including Nature and Cell. He’s got the academic chops to navigate a discussion on federal funding for biomedical research – and a sizable audience to take it all in.
Here are some highlights from the interview:
Federal research is concentrated in too few research areas and in too few places, according to Bhattacharya.
Our current model of research funding disincentivizes innovative research and rewards predictable findings, with federal funding going toward stale topics rather than nascent research areas. (Stuart Buck of the Good Science Project made a similar point in the first issue of Heterodox Academy’s inquisitive magazine.)
Additionally, early career researchers are landing their first big grant later in their careers than in previous cohorts. This is a problem because often the biggest discovery in a scientist's career is actually made earlier in their career, when they are less encumbered by stale norms and more likely to think outside of the box. By favoring established lines of research with known scientists, opportunities for exciting new discoveries may be missed. (The host and guest did not raise questions about why $182 million in medical research training and career development has been terminated.)
In the interview, Bhattacharya also argued that much of federally funded research is heavily concentrated in a few select universities located on the East and West coasts, despite the abundance of talent across the nation.
The NIH will address the replication crisis.
Huberman and Bhattacharya both lamented the lack of glamor and professional prestige associated with replication studies, despite the absolutely crucial role that replication research plays in truth-seeking. “We need to reward the things that produce ground truth rather than the things that produce influence,” said Bhattacharya.
In promising news for open inquiry, Bhattacharya claimed in the interview that the NIH will prioritize replication work in three ways: (1) The NIH will set aside funding specifically for replication studies (though one wonders how exactly that would happen if the $18 billion in proposed cuts to the NIH proceed per the Administration’s wishes). (2) The NIH will create an academic journal that will feature replication study results, which are often not picked up by major journals, according to Bhattarchya. And (3) the NIH will measure how much scientists engage in what Bhattacharya calls “pro-social” behaviors, such as sharing data and undertaking replication studies. These plans coming to fruition would seem to be welcome advancements for open inquiry (although some have expressed doubts about the efficacy of this plan).
Academic freedom and free speech are integral to robust science.
In his own estimation, “Stanford failed the academic freedom test” in its treatment of Bhattacharya after he co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bhattacharya, then a tenured professor at Stanford, urged re-opening schools and businesses to normal levels of function for low-risk individuals and communities. (Read his elaboration of this in Tablet Magazine.)
The dean of the medical school asked Bhattacharya to stop speaking to the press about his views on COVID-19 – an infringement on his extramural speech. Moreover, he was “ordered to re-do” a study he conducted on COVID-19 antibodies. His colleague, Scott Atlas, was also censured by the Faculty Senate of Stanford for advocating ending lockdowns.
“For scientists, free speech is an absolute must. If you have an idea that is different from mine, you should be able to express it,” said Bhattacharya – a sentiment that hopefully extends to NIH staff themselves, many of whom have recently signed a letter in protest of the Trump Administration’s management of the NIH. Bhattacharya also criticized the tendency for some scientists to act as “propagandists” (or some may say activists) rather than truth-seekers and defenders of inquiry.
Bhattacharya also briefly mentioned his experience being asked to submit a statement demonstrating his commitment to DEI as a part of a job application process – a requirement that can undermine open inquiry by effectively compelling allegiance to particular political ideas.
“Social justice” goals remain unwelcome in the NIH.
Referring to the NIH’s prior interest in work on disparities, “We’re essentially asking the scientific institutions of the country to somehow solve these deeper problems of essential cosmic injustice in ways that we don’t actually have the capacity to do,” Bhattacharya told Huberman. “Unscientific” topics like structural racism are beyond the scope of the NIH, he said. Bhattacharya appears to stand by the abrupt cancellations of grants that touch on race, sexual orientation, and gender, though a federal judge recently ruled that the terminated grants must be restored. (The judge, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, had this to say: “I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years and I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this. Is it true of our society as a whole, have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”)
As a health economist, in the interview with Huberman, Bhattacharya acknowledged the important role that race and sex play in health and disease. He mentioned glaucoma and sickle cell disease specifically as research areas that have grappled with race-based risks, and claimed that the NIH remains committed to improving the health of minority populations. (Presumably, similar research will not be conducted within the National Institute on Minority Health and Disparities, which the Trump Administration has proposed to eliminate.)
Bhattacharya claimed that there is an appeals process for anyone whose grant was mistakenly caught in the DEI dragnet, but the discussion did not veer towards reflections on the scientific rigor (or lack thereof) of the termination process itself.
In short, Bhattacharya seems to be talking the talk of open inquiry, academic freedom, and innovation – all values celebrated by Heterodox Academy. Hopefully, the new NIH Director will also walk the walk, and exceed the expectations of circumspect observers who are considering the director’s words in the context of the tremendous upheaval of the past few months.
 | A guest post by
|