WASHINGTON — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an outspoken health economist and Stanford University professor, is currently the nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Facing critical questions from senators from both parties on Wednesday, Bhattacharya addressed concerns over significant funding cuts and the agency’s research priorities.
Known for his criticism of the government’s COVID-19 shutdowns and vaccine policies, Bhattacharya aims to become the director of an institution often regarded as the government’s premier biomedical research facility. His prospective leadership comes at a pivotal time as the NIH faces substantial employment reductions and financial cutbacks.
“I love the NIH but post-pandemic, America’s biomedical sciences are at a crossroads,” Bhattacharya proclaimed to the senators. He underscored a need for increased emphasis on chronic illnesses such as diabetes and obesity, while advocating for the agency to be more receptive to scientific dissent. Early in the pandemic, prominent NIH figures dismissed his critiques of the COVID-19 response.
Bhattacharya received a warm welcome from Republicans like Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who heads the Senate health committee. However, Cassidy interrogated him regarding the skepticism surrounding vaccines, a factor contributing to a significant measles outbreak in Texas that claimed a child’s life. Cassidy insisted that NIH funds should not be wasted on revisiting the debunked myth of a link between standard childhood vaccines and autism.
The nominee called the measles fatality a tragedy, affirming his support for vaccinating children but acknowledged that further research could potentially persuade hesitant parents. Unmoved, Cassidy pointedly remarked, “People still think Elvis is alive,” warning that revisiting the disproven issue would detract resources from investigating the actual causes of autism.
Several Senators, including Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, voiced significant frustration about the challenges facing the nation’s largest funder of medical research. They expressed concerns over near-crippling staff reductions and financial cutbacks — now paused by a judiciary decision — which could compromise advancements in treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Bhattacharya assured the senators that he had no involvement in the recent cuts. If confirmed as NIH director, he pledged to carefully scrutinize the issues to ensure researchers are equipped with the necessary resources. He also noted that some cutbacks during the Trump administration reflected a mistrust of scientific research.
Historically, the NIH, with an annual budget of $48 billion, enjoyed robust bipartisan backing. Renowned for spearheading innovative research at its 27 specialized institutes, the agency funds an array of scientific inquiries through competitive grants awarded to universities, hospitals, and research groups, supporting everything from fundamental research to clinical trials.
Most treatment developments approved in the United States in recent years have implicated NIH-funded research to some degree. Bhattacharya gained public attention as one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020. The document criticized the pandemic shutdowns, asserting they caused extensive harm and proposed that people at low COVID-19 risk should return to a normal life while acquiring immunity through natural infection.
At that time, before the vaccine rollout, Bhattacharya’s view found some support within the Trump administration but was broadly criticized by infectious disease experts. Then-NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins termed it dangerous and described it as “not mainstream science.” Bhattacharya later became a central figure in a Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri, claiming he was unfairly censored on social media amidst governmental anti-misinformation efforts. Despite nationwide attention, the case ultimately failed in a 6-3 ruling.
Though poised for a full Senate vote, Bhattacharya, who holds a medical degree but does not practice medicine, continues his health care economics research, financed partly by the NIH.
