In October 2020, Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, sent an email that maligned his colleague. A few days ago, Stanford University health policy professor Jay Bhatacharya, along with two others, issued a statement calling for loose public health restrictions in the face of the pandemic. Instead of closure, the statement argued that the state could simply spread the infection during most of its population. Collins, Many other scientistsI thought this was a dangerous idea. Bhattacharya and his co-authors are “fringe epidemiologists,” and the proposal needed a “quick and catastrophic” rebuttal, Collins wrote Email This was later revealed through a public record request. Collins doubled the firing in a media interview a week later: “This is an element of the fringe of epidemiology,” he said. I said Washington Post. “This is not a mainstream sncience.”
So where are these two now? Collins suddenly Ended Last week’s 32-year career at NIH, Bhatacharya is the choice to take over Donald Trump’s agency. Turnabout created a pleasant story for those struggling with scientific governance. “It’s amazing to see you’ve been appointed head of the very agency that persecuted you for what you believed in,” Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks said at a confirmation hearing in Bhatacharya yesterday. For Bhatacharya, the man who described himself as a victim of “Propaganda Attack” Collins’ humiliation, carried out by the country’s $48 billion biomedical research facility, has become a badge of pride even for his major qualifications for employment at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Fringe” is in charge.
When Collins was asked by a House Committee about his comments on the great Barrington Declaration last year, he said I said He was wary of the proposal moving forward so quickly to his boss, Alex Hazard. Now, the role is filled by another person, such as Fringe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and perhaps an outsider scholar such as Batacharya, and an unpractical physician. Opposite view– I have a bigger shaking than ever before. (Bhattacharya refused to be interviewed for this story. Collins did not respond to requests for comment.)
“Science requires freedom of speech to succeed,” Bhatacharya told the committee at the hearing. “We need an environment where there is tolerance to objections,” which has long been addressing his message and warning to the science community. In Bhattacharya’s view, Collins helped coordinate efforts to distrust his and others’ calls for an alternative approach to the pandemic. Collins’ role in a facility that diversifies billions of dollars with research funding gave him the horrifying power to “drove heretics” as a batacharya. Please put it down In 2023, “Just as the Catholic Church did.”
Now he means using the same authority to correct that mistake. In him Opening remarks Yesterday, Bhatacharya vowed to create an environment where scientists, including early scientists and scientists who disagree with me, can express their differences in respect and express their differences. It is not yet clear what this actually means. Wall Street Journal He reports that he may try to prioritize funding from universities that have scored high scores in critical measures across campus.Freedom of academic studies. “In other words, Bhattacharya might try to reverse the institution’s $1 billion leverage.
These aspirations coincides with his allies who are riding in Washington as the champion of those listening to science. Last month, Kennedy promised in his first speech to his staff that he would foster discussions to study chronic diseases and “convened representatives of all perspectives.” “There is nothing to be bannedHe said. FDA Commissioner candidate Marty Makary spoke about his experiences “Censored Complex” He also lamented the atmosphere of “complete intolerance” in public health. These men suggest that consensus thinking is oppressive. Alternative ideas, whatever they are, have intrinsic value.
Certainly we can all agree that GroupThink is a drug. However, a pattern of curiosity has emerged among the Fringe Auloct, who holds power. Their dissent, scattered across the suburbs of traditional beliefs, appears to curl towards a new fringe consensus of its own. For example, there was some space between Kennedy’s location, the country’s key figures questioning the safety and benefits of the inoculation, and Bhatacharya. Kennedy made it False claims About the dangers of mRNA-based covid shots. Meanwhile, Bhatacharya has once been called the same vaccine.Medical miracle– Very valuable to protect vulnerable people from severe Covid-19 diseases. ” (He too It was criticized Anthony Fauci’s Downplay The advantage of Covid Shot is that you continue to wear a mask even after being vaccinated. )
Bhattacharya has been tolerant of other people’s more outrageous claims about vaccines in the past. But its neutrality has recently wafted into a calm attitude of acceptance, like a one-arm embrace. Under questions from the senator, he said he is confident there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine (and he is confident that he is fully supportive of a vaccine for children against measles. However, he also came to the idea that Kennedy’s goal of doing further research on the topic is equally valuable. Last July, despite past enthusiasm for mRNA-based Covid-19 shots, Bhattacharya said he plans to sign on statement They seek their attachment because they “contribute to the surprising increase in disability and the contribution of excessive deaths.” Kennedy has it I petitioned Similarly, for the same reasons. (actual, There is no meaningful evidence The vaccine caused excessive deaths. ) post In X, Bhatacharya explained that at first he was hesitant to take this step as some groups could still benefit from the vaccine, but he realized that pulling the vaccine would create the necessary conditions to test whether it was still worth it.
Voices of opposition began to combine into the chorus on this and other issues. Lab Leak Theory of Covid’s Origin provides another case. At yesterday’s hearing, Bhatacharya explained the early rejection of the possibility that the coronavirus spread from the lab in Wuhan in China, and “a low point in the history of science.” It’s an exaggeration, but the criticism is fair. Opposition was suppressed and ignored. But again, what began as mere support for the debate has evolved into a countervailing sense of certainty. There are still Lots of reasons In fact, the most important details about the origins of the pandemic remain unknown, as it believes the pandemic began with the natural passage of the virus from the animal host. However, fringes are largely resolved to alternative interpretations. Bhattacharya says it’s a pandemic “probably” Started in the lab (future location) Approvalalthough it has low or moderate confidence by almost half of the government agencies that considered it. McCurry said theoriesIt’s easy. ” RFK Jr. published a 600-page book, Uhan’s cover-upin support of that.
Based on the Senate Republican majority and Kennedy’s confirmation precedent, Bhatacharya is almost certain to sail the Senate vote in a short period of time. But his prospects for submitting his mission are even fainter. Some of his positions have already been undermined by previous actions of the Trump administration. According to a new report of Natureit’s the agency End hundreds of active research grants It may be interpreted as focusing on gender and diversity, among other topics. Some work may be permitted to continue as long as the “DEI Language” is stripped of the relevant documents. This is not the “culture of respect for freedom of speech” that Bhatacharya promised yesterday. Other basic work at the NIH is being dismantled under the second Trump administration. There were about 1,200 employees Dismissalthere is a review of the grant It’s frozenand a policy has been declared to narrow the funds for research at national universities. Bhattacharya is trying to take the levers of power, but these levers have been torn from the home, the springs have been removed and sold as scrap.
Yesterday, when they were forced to develop these, Bhatacharya continued to return to a single line. “We are fully committed to ensuring that all NIH scientists and the scientists they support have the necessary resources.” It remains doubtful whether he has the authority or know-how to do so. “Dr. Harold Balmus, who ran the agency in the 1990s, told me shortly after the hearing ended. Regarding Battacharya’s goal of promoting freedom of speech among scientists and fostering cutting-edge ideas for research, Balmus said the issue was misdiagnosed. “It’s upsetting to me to see what’s coming,” he told me, “Because this guy shouldn’t be in my old office.”
Because of its value, Bhatacharya also shares other ambitious plans. For example, he aims to make science more reliable by incorporating the boring work of replicating findings into NIH-funded research. “Replication is the heart and soul of what the truth in science is,” he said at the hearing. that It may help to solve an immediate problem In science, it is also a very expensive project and starts when research costs are being reduced. Under current conditions, even the basic task of carrying out NIH seems to be quite stressful in itself. Bhattacharya is His accountIn recent years, I have experienced a lot of stress due to the many efforts that distrust him. His confirmation may not bring him a complete relief.
