‘We Dissent’: NIH Staff Hit Out Against ‘Politicised’ Research

Over 300 scientists and employees from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have come together to express their concerns regarding the increasing politicization of research within the institution. They have directed a heartfelt plea to NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, urging him to restore funding that has been delayed or terminated due to political reasons. Their call to action stems from a commitment to preserving life-saving science and research that is crucial for public health.

In a letter dubbed the “Bethesda Declaration,” the NIH staff emphasized their dissent against the recent policies of the Trump administration which they argue undermine the core mission of the NIH. The letter was sent on a Monday morning and not only addressed Dr. Bhattacharya but also Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The signatories expressed their belief that the politicization of the NIH is wasting public resources and negatively impacting health outcomes, both domestically and globally.

The concerns of the NIH staff extend beyond mere funding; they also called for the reinstatement of terminated staff, the revival of international collaborations, and the commitment to peer-reviewed research publication. “We dissent to [Trump] Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission,” they articulated, highlighting that prioritizing political agendas over scientific integrity harms research participants and public health.

The signers of the letter include scientists from various divisions within the NIH, some of whom chose to remain anonymous due to a “culture of fear and suppression.” Dr. Jenna Norton, one of the organizers of the letter, remarked, “Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up.” She underlined the ethical obligation scientists have to safeguard research participants and maintain the scientific integrity of their work.

This letter comes at a critical time, coinciding with Dr. Bhattacharya’s appearance before the Senate’s Appropriations Committee to discuss the NIH’s budget request. The timing underscores the urgency and relevance of the staff’s concerns about funding and research integrity under the current administration.

The NIH staff pointedly criticized the Trump administration’s approach to research funding, describing it as “politicised.” They allege that around 2,100 research grants worth approximately $9.5 billion and more than $2.6 billion in contracts were terminated since the administration took office. This drastic action has disrupted numerous research initiatives critical to public health.

In their letter, the NIH employees referenced how indiscriminate grant terminations have disproportionately affected multiple universities, holding up important ongoing research projects. They contend that these decisions are often driven by political ideologies rather than the merit of the science. Such actions have been condemned as contradictory to federal regulations that mandate the protection of research participants and the transparent reasoning behind grant terminations.

Notably, many of the terminated projects are not just theoretical studies but also practical experiments that involve vast monetary inputs and years of data collection. The letter poignantly states, “Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million; it wastes $4 million.” The implications of such halted research extend far beyond financial losses, as trials sometimes put participant safety at risk and leave medical advancements in limbo.

Moreover, the NIH employees are advocating for the restoration of vital partnerships, calling for Dr. Bhattacharya to enable collaborations with vetted foreign researchers. They expressed concerns that American scientists, in their push to combat diseases like HIV and tuberculosis, are being cut off from the global scientific community, severely affecting global health efforts.

For instance, South Africa may lose up to 70% of its medical research capacity due to NIH funding cancellations, hampering years of significant progress in tackling HIV and TB. This situation is alarming and could reverse decades of advancements in public health research, as echoed by various reports from reputable organizations.

The urgency of the NIH staff’s appeals is underscored by their alignment with Stand Up for Science, a Washington-based non-profit organization dedicated to defending science and democratic principles. The group has rallied support from numerous high-profile scientists, including 19 Nobel laureates, amplifying the call for restoring scientific integrity at the NIH.

Interestingly, the Bethesda Declaration follows the controversial Great Barrington Declaration that Bhattacharya and colleagues put forth during the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting a specific viewpoint on the management of the virus. This parallel has drawn both support and criticism and raises questions about the ethical implications of political motivations influencing scientific discourse.

Adding another layer to the narrative, the NIH staff staged a walkout during a recent Town Hall meeting when Dr. Bhattacharya expressed views linking the COVID-19 pandemic to NIH-sponsored research. This protest highlights a growing discontent among NIH staff regarding the direction the institution is taking under current leadership.

The NIH has long been regarded as a beacon of public health research and collaboration, making substantial contributions through its partnerships in academia. The contention that these alliances are now under threat due to political machinations concerns many in the scientific community.

As data-driven decisions in public health hang in the balance, the NIH staff implores leadership to refocus on the mission of advancing health through rigorously peer-reviewed science, free from the influence of political agendas. The future of not only American public health but global health may depend on restoring the integrity of scientific research and collaboration. The ongoing dialogue at the NIH is more than a bureaucratic concern; it encompasses the ethical duty to protect the welfare of research participants and ensure the continued advancement of health science.

In conclusion, the NIH faces a pivotal moment as its staff push back against the intertwining of politics and science. The calls for restored funding, reinstated personnel, and global collaboration reverberate through the halls of scientific inquiry, urging both the institution and its leaders to navigate away from political turbulence and back to the core mission of advancing public health through rigorous, unfettered scientific research.

Source link