Jay Bhattacharya Will Bring Much-Needed Transparency to NIH
I was very familiar with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s pandemic record and had many reasons to doubt that science and the NIH would thrive when his nomination was announced. Other people saw it differently at the time. Dr. Andrew Noymer wrote an article titled Jay Bhattacharya Will Bring Much-Needed Transparency to NIH. In it, he centered his own personal conference invitations and said:
Transparency is a principal (and principled) solution to lack of public trust in institutions. I am confident that Jay’s pursuit of transparency can restore public trust in NIH.
Zeynep Tufekci wrote an article in the New York Times titled Trump’s Pick to Lead the N.I.H. Gets Some Things Right that said:
It’s a welcome sign that, unlike many of Donald Trump’s picks to lead parts of the nation’s health system, his pick for director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, is actually qualified.
Dr. Leanna Wen wrote an article in the Washington Post titled The NIH and FDA Nominees are Surprisingly Strong that said:
I think that Bhattacharya and Makary were unfairly labeled “covid deniers” and unjustly ostracized in medical circles. During their confirmation hearings, both spoke about open discourse, dissent and debate as cornerstones of their tenures at NIH and the FDA. That’s a good thing. Scientific progress hinges on challenging conventional thinking, and I appreciated hearing their ideas for how things can be done differently.
COVID fabulist Dr. John Mandrola scolded Dr. Bhattacharya’s critics by saying:
There’s plenty to be worried about but the 100% partisan vote on @DrJBhattacharya for NIH ranks high on the list. If you want to heal science, how can 47 thinking humans vote against a proven academic and a Stanford professor? Science should be apolitical. Come on, you all.
Although Dr. Bhattacharya participated in not one, but two presidential campaigns in 2024, Dr. Mandrola depicted him as nothing more than “a proven academic” and said it was “political” to oppose him in any way.
Dr. Monica Gandhi was also pleased. She said:
NIH DIRECTOR: Confirmation hearing of @DrJBhattacharya tomorrow- Dr. Bhattacharya is going to do a great job as @NIHDirector and bring stability back to this great medical research funding organization as demoralized at present; he will stabilize the NIH
Dr. Bhattacharya’s fellow laptop class professors were also eager to vouch for him. Harvard President Alan M. Garber called him a “serious and dedicated researcher who has always been well-intentioned,” while Stanford President Jonathan Levin said, “I think he’ll do an exceptional job in that role.” Stephen Macedo, the author of the revisionist history book In COVID’s Wake said, “Excellent appointment!” Mark Hlatky, a Stanford professor of health policy and medicine said, “I do think Jay is a reasonable person, not an ideologue,” and Dana Goldman, director of the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics said, “If there’s anyone I wanted to be making the case to the president about the value of science to solve problems and contribute to economic prosperity, it would be Jay Bhattacharya right now.” Richard Vedder, a distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University wrote an article titled A Great Trump Appointment: Jay Bhattacharya.
Bari Weiss, a promoter of conformity and groupthink, fluffed him in a podcast titled Jay Bhattacharya Was ‘Dangerous.’ Now He Leads the NIH. She said:
Jay has lived a remarkable life, and we get into all of it, including how his faith allowed him to stick to his values—and even to pray for Francis Collins, the old NIH director who called his ideas dangerous—the chutzpah it took to fight the entire medical establishment, how he ultimately triumphed against his critics, and how he wants to put the National Institutes of Health on the front line in the war against chronic illness in America.
Juvenile pseudojournalist Paul Thacker wrote a fluff piece titled The COVID-Era Smearing – and Resurrection – of Trump NIH Appointee Dr. Jay Bhattacharya that said:
Even as he seeks to advance medical research, Bhattacharya’s personal experience will likely inform his pledge to clean up the NIH and clear the agency of some career civil servants who silenced dissenting scientific voices during the pandemic and created national policies that were not always supported by the public. “Free speech is fundamental for science to function properly,” he notes simply.
NIH Staff Lambaste Agency Head for Censorship of Science
Though Dr. Bhattacharya has been in office for just under 3 months, we now have some data points to evaluate his performance so far. Articles at the start of his tenure spoke of “bloodbaths” and “purges.” DOGE seems to be running the show, as explained by the article NIH Killed Grants on Orders from Elon Musk’s DOGE. NIH staffers seem to revile and distrust him as explained by the article “Out of His Depth,” “Sold His Soul,” “Clueless”: NIH Staffers Speak Out About Director Bhattacharya.
In addition to the news I shared in my article Our Medical Establishment is Flailing, from just two weeks ago, here are some more recent headlines:
Meanwhile, during his recent Senate testimony, Dr. Bhattacharya acted as he were a passive observer to the organization he purportedly leads and struggled to answer basic questions about the future of clinical trials and research at the NIH.
With all this in mind, I’d like to hear from those people who reassured us that Dr. Bhattacharya was both qualified to run the NIH and motivated to improve it. Let’s hear them make the affirmative case that research and free speech are thriving under his leadership. I am sure they have a lot to teach us all.
