During Testy Confirmation Hearing, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya Promises New Culture at NIH

By Jennifer Galardi, Contributing Writer, The Kennedy Beacon

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of Health Policy at Stanford University, sat for just over two hours Wednesday morning in front of the House Committee on Health, Education, Culture, and Labor, as senators hurled questions at him. He’s President Trump’s nominee to become Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH). He faces a full senate vote on a date yet to be determined.

Much of the hearing, testy at times, was simply a redacted version of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings in February. In light of the recent “outbreak” of measles in Texas, senators asked Bhattacharya about vaccinations, autism, and chronic disease. There were also questions about censoring dissenting voices, radical transparency, corporate capture, government staffing cuts, and what projects deserve NIH funding.

Opening Remarks

In his opening remarks, Battacharya said the NIH is the “crown jewel of biomedical sciences, with a long history of supporting breakthroughs in biology and medicine.” During the hearing he made it clear he wants to guide the NIH by that north star once again.

Bhattacharya outlined five goals that support the MAHA agenda: First, he said NIH should focus on research that solves the chronic disease crisis, which he called severe, via “gold standard science and innovation.”

Second, Bhattacharya said NIH science should be “replicable, reproducible, and generalizable.” He said most current science fails that basic test. “The NIH can and must solve the crisis of scientific data reliability and under my leadership, if confirmed, it will do so,” he stated.

Third, the doctor said he would establish a “culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH.” He accused prior NIH top officials of promoting a culture of cover-up and obfuscation, and a lack of tolerance of difference of opinions.

He promised to actively encourage different perspectives stating, “dissent is the essence of science.” In response to a question from Ashley Moody (R-FL), the former Attorney General of Florida, Bhattacharya relayed his own experience of censorship under the Biden administration during Covid. “It was so refreshing to me to be allowed to speak my scientific views in Florida during the pandemic.” He continued, “the root problem was that people who had alternate ideas were suppressed. Science, to succeed, needs free speech.”

Bhattacharya also said the NIH must “recommit to its mission to fund the most innovative bio medical research agenda possible.” In doing so, the NIH could focus on making big advancements rather than small incremental progress over many years.

Lastly, Bhattacharya stated the NIH must regulate risky research that could potentially cause a pandemic and “embrace transparency in all its operations.” He said the institute should never support work that might cause harm to humans.

DOGE Cuts

Later in the hearing, Roger Marshall (R-KS) addressed the rationale for the cuts Musk and his team at DOGE are making. Marshall recalled the massive amount of funding that went toward a narrow scope of research based on one study that showed amyloid plaque build up in the brain to be the cause of Alzheimer's.

“When I think of the NIH – the waste that has occurred – and I think of Alzheimer’s, the waste is the path we went down since 2005 or 2006.”

Bhattacharya agreed with Marshall. “There’s a whole set of projects, senator, focused by the NIH on a particular hypothesis – the amyloid hypothesis – at the expense of other hypotheses,” he said. Emphasizing the need for humility amongst the scientific community, he continued, “We have to, as scientists, [have the humility] to say we might be wrong.”

Bhattacharya told his inquisitors, “If I’m confirmed as NIH Director, I want to make sure that all the range of hypotheses are supported. That’s how you make progress.” This would include expanding the scope of research to include what Senator Marshall called “food as medicine,” an area which traditionally has not fallen under the purview of the NIH.

Dems go on the Attack

Committee chair Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) kicked off the hearing raising one of the core issues at today’s NIH – incentives for researchers to limit their inquiries to already established theories about disease and health rather than broadening their curiosity and scope to provide answers to improve public health.

“There’s a concern the current system incentivizes established scientists who study already proven concepts rather than younger scientists who have unproven ideas with potential as major medical breakthroughs,” Cassidy stated.

He continued, “While this practice may ensure the short- term success of federal grants, it limits groundbreaking discoveries.”

As expected, the opposition committee chair, Bernie Sanders (D-VT), raised questions about cost and inequities in health care, as well as prescription drugs. Yet, as during Kennedy’s hearing, he failed to acknowledge other potential solutions – unbiased research, preventative care, and informed consent. He also failed to pronounce Dr. Bhattacharya’s name properly.

Using the same aggressive tone as during the Kennedy hearing, Sanders repeatedly interrupted Bhattacharya with his signature refrain, “I don’t have much time.”

Like many Democrats throughout the hearing, who view DOGE cuts at NIH and other agencies as catastrophic, Sanders used a lot of oxygen to address the party’s latest boogeyman – Elon Musk – rather than ask the nominee relevant questions. According to Sanders, the committee was interviewing the wrong man for the job. “Bottom line is, in my view, the gentleman we should be having up there — again, no disrespect to you, sir, is Mr. Musk.”

Science and Freedom

During the pandemic, Bhattacharya questioned mask mandates, school closures, and lockdowns, co-authoring the now famous Barrington Declaration.

“Science should be an engine for freedom – knowledge and freedom,” Bhattacharya told Jim Banks (R-IN). Doing so would earn it universal support, he stated.

In addition, Bhattacharya and several senators once again debated the link between vaccines and autism. Based on his reading of the literature, Bhattacharya doesn’t believe there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. However, he said that the distrust in medicine and science since Covid caused many to question the research that reportedly proved that claim. Bhattacharya would support a “broad scientific agenda based on data” to get an answer to the reason for the sharp rise of autism cases.

As he usually does, Rand Paul injected levity to the proceedings, resulting in chuckles through the chamber.

Like USAID, the NIH has funded laughable studies, Paul said. Studies such as whether tequila or gin makes people more aggressive. To which Paul offered the answer, “We all know it’s gotta be tequila, right?” His point, like Marshall’s, was simple: direct grants toward research that will help improve the health of the greatest number of Americans rather than frivolous experiments on “whether lonely rats use more cocaine than well liked rats use.”