In Washington, the confirmation hearing for Jay Bhattacharya, slated to lead the National Institutes of Health, laid the groundwork with a commitment to embrace dissenting views in scientific discourse. Bhattacharya called dissent “the essence of science,” a stance now being rigorously tested.
A significant letter, named the Bethesda Declaration, was recently penned by numerous scientists from the NIH, signaling their discontent with policies they claim undermine the agency’s mission and that have adverse implications for health both nationally and globally. They assert, “We dissent.”
In a political environment where anonymity often cloaks such criticisms, 92 NIH researchers boldly affixed their names to the declaration, risking their careers. Meanwhile, an additional 250 of their colleagues endorsed it anonymously. Delivered to Bhattacharya, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and congressional overseers, the letter sparked political and public attention.
The declaration emerged as Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate committee to discuss budgetary matters, opening the floor to questions regarding the concerns raised by the declaration. At the same time, Democratic members on a House committee urged investigative hearings.
The authors of the letter voice their concerns amidst what they describe as a “culture of fear and suppression” attributed to the Trump administration’s impact on federal civil services. They argue the agency’s leadership has prioritized political objectives over public safety and responsible management of resources.
In response, Bhattacharya clarified that the declaration misconstrued the NIH’s recent policy directions, particularly regarding international collaborations. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the productivity of respectful dissent within the scientific community.
The Bethesda Declaration highlights upheaval at the world-renowned public health research institution, chronicling the abrupt cessation of 2,100 research projects valued over $12 billion. This has created significant fallout, such as interrupting medicine regimens for clinical trials and halting studies critical to addressing diseases like multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis.
The signatories argue that mid-course termination of research is economically inefficient and detracts from scientific progress, leading to greater financial waste and underutilization of prior investments.
One prominent voice, Jenna Norton from the NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, emerged as a key organizer of the protest. Initially remaining anonymous, Norton has since stepped into the spotlight, motivated by her desire to publicize the dire situation within the NIH. She and her colleagues drew inspiration from Bhattacharya’s Great Barrington Declaration from 2020, which similarly advocated against extensive COVID-19 lockdowns.
Sarah Kobrin, among the signatories, expressed her concerns over the impacts of cuts on cancer research, emphasizing the transition from advancing scientific inquiry to merely minimizing losses. Kobrin criticized the politicization leading to the dismantling of critical biomedical projects.
Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher, articulated the broader mission of scientific endeavor in saving future lives and lamented the jeopardizing of this mission under the current administrative policies, particularly those involving substantial grant reductions.
The dissent has resonated across all 27 NIH institutes, with signatories largely coming from those involved in assessing external research grants. They accuse the administration of executing indiscriminate funding cuts and neglecting promises to research participants who have engaged under altruistic expectations of furthering scientific and health advancements.
The Trump administration has targeted public health research through its initiatives aimed at reducing diversity, equity, and inclusion measures and diminishing federal funding for certain academic institutions.
In this environment, NIH employees have previously voiced their grievances through public demonstrations. The Bethesda Declaration now marks a significant collective expression of internal discontent, urging Bhattacharya to consider the ethical principle of academic freedom as foundational in scientific practice.
The unfolding situation puts to the test Bhattacharya’s promise that NIH scientists can engage in open discourse without professional repercussions. The outcome remains to be seen, whether this guarantee will shield those challenging the administration’s controversial standpoints.
For Jenna Norton, speaking out is a conscientious decision made amid fear of repercussions, driven by a sense of duty towards future generations and the integrity of public health research.