Silenced on COVID, scientist-turned NIH leader says govt will support dissenting research

OPINION/ANALYSIS

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s dissenting opinions about COVID-19 may not have been respected by federal government scientists at the time. But as the new director of the National Institutes of Health, he is committed to ensuring that other scholars’ will be.

“I’m proud to announce that @NIH is adopting a new framework to strengthen our existing policies to ensure every NIH scientist can publish, present & engage freely—without fear of interference or retaliation,” he wrote Tuesday on X. 

The former Stanford medical professor said in a statement Friday that the framework “embeds principles of academic freedom” throughout the agency, and strengthens NIH policies to ensure scientists do not fear conducting or sharing research that may not align with prevailing opinions.

“History shows that many scientific breakthroughs result from intellectual curiosity and a willingness to challenge the status quo,” Bhattacharya stated. 

An epidemiologist and public health policy expert, Bhattacharya expressed hope that the agency’s efforts will be mirrored by other academic and research institutions.

“When scientists are encouraged to put their ideas out for scientific debate, both science and society are stronger, and patients and communities ultimately benefit,” he said. 

The change comes a few months after the NIH ended a Biden-era directive that required scholars to submit “Plans for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives,” “Recruitment Plans to Enhance Diversity,” and other ideologically-based documents in their grant applications.

Friday’s announcement received praise from scientists and researchers on X. 

“This is a fantastic policy,” Jason Locasale, a pharmacology and cancer biology researcher, wrote on X. 

A former Duke University professor, Locasale wrote: “The next step is expanding it to extramural research, where NIH funds up to 70–90% of elite medical school budgets. Stipulations guaranteeing academic freedom should be embedded in grant contracts, with enforcement and external oversight so university researchers aren’t silenced by university administrators.”

Others also approved of the agency’s changes. 

“A clear reminder: science works best when scientists are free to explore!” epidemiologist Taulant Muka wrote on X. 

A scientist at UC San Francisco, Dr. Monica Gandhi, specifically praised the NIH director for prioritizing research to end HIV in the framework, seemingly implying that past leaders have not been as keen on finding a solution to the epidemic.

Gandhi wrote on X that “we can do this if we try & the end can be in sight.”

Bhattacharya personally knows the consequences of limiting dissenting scientific research. 

During the COVID pandemic, he co-authored the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which challenged the pro-lockdown narrative. 

At an academic freedom conference in 2022, Bhattacharya said he paid dearly for speaking up, The College Fix reported at the time. 

“When you take a position that is at odds with the scientific clerisy, your life becomes a living hell,” Bhattacharya said. “You face a deeply hostile work environment.”

As a result of the censorship and hostility he faced, he concluded at the time that “academic freedom is dead.”

Now, in his new role as NIH director, Bhattacharya is working to reverse that conclusion, and ensure that other scientists are not similarly persecuted.

“To ensure our scientists remain at the forefront of discovery, NIH is committed to fostering an environment where questioning the prevailing scientific norms is not just accepted, but expected. The new framework reinforces that scientific inquiry should be subject to rigorous debate and open discourse,” he stated Friday.