President Donald Trump’s candidate, who led the National Institutes of Health before a Senate committee on Wednesday to testify about using taxpayer funds for useful medical research and improving transparency at the National Institutes of Health, faced bipartisan questions opposed to disruptive change.

Jay Batacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, testified before the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee, outlined his vision for the Institute’s future. This vision called for more tolerance to disagreement in order to reestablish trust lost during the Covid-19 pandemic, with a new focus on practical applications for human health, less waste and fraud.

“I love NIH, but post-pandemic biomedical sciences in America are at a crossroads,” he said.

Bhattacharya highlighted five priorities: It focuses on chronic diseases. Addressing the crisis of reproducibility in science. Establish a culture of freedom of speech and diversity of perspectives. A recommendation for innovative breakthroughs to progressive progress by powerful incumbent scientists. Introduces regulations for dangerous research that poses a pandemic risk. (Related: Maha vs The Swamp: Reveals the moment from the first confirmation hearing of 5 RFK JR)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqjgtvlcoe
Bhattacharya became famous first The Great Barrington Declaration In October 2020, the NIH and the Broken Statement in pursuit of “intensive protection” against Covid-19 will allow low-risk individuals to live a normal life while protecting high-risk groups. Former NIH Director Frances Collins I’m personally called To fight this stance aggressively. Bhatacharya I’ve tried it About efforts to work with social media companies to narrow down alternative perspectives during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The hearing was not an issue for Bhatacharya, not just Democrats, but also for Louisiana’s Republican Chairman Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy was a critic of Batacharya boss Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s previous statement on measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. His stance on Kennedy’s nomination remained doubt until the committee vote, but he ultimately defeated his confirmation in favor of it.

Cassidy directed Batacharya to question the MMR vaccine. Cassidy expressed concern that confidence in the vaccine could lead to a backlash as he continues to study it, and expressed his opposition to applying “valuable limited taxpayer dollars” to the issue.

Bhattacharya said she is confident there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine, highlighting the need for “good data.”

“I don’t believe there are links based on literature reading when it comes to research on autism and vaccines, but what I saw is that there is an incredible distrust of medicine and science that comes out of the pandemic. “I don’t know. I don’t think scientists know what it’s because of it. So I support… a broad, data-based scientific agenda to get the answer to that.”

“But this is pretty good. In fact, it’s been thoroughly researched and resources are limited,” Cassidy retorted. “And if we continue to cultivate the ground we are cultivated, you know that we can never prove a negative, and we don’t know the cause. [of autism] There’s still a problem. You are responsible for limited resources. ”

The gentleman seemed to have not reached an agreement.

However, Cassidy also expressed optimism about Bhatacharya’s ability to reinvigorate NIH research.

“There is concern that current systems incentives have established scientists studying already proven concepts, rather than young scientists with unproven ideas that could become major medical breakthroughs,” Cassidy said.

Bhatacharya also faces passionate questions from Democrats and Republicans, with the recent disruption to the institute will include a new cap on the proportion of universities and institutes in fundraising. Dismissal of NIH probation employee. And a pause to the NIH research section, partially lifted last week.

Collins has expressed strong opposition to the so-called “indirect” cap.

“I think it’s important for us all to acknowledge that it doesn’t make sense to fit into all approaches, so the NIH negotiates with individual grant recipients on what’s indirect,” Collins said. “It’s not worth imparting this optional cap at all. It’s also important to emphasize that this is illegal. Since 2017, we have a language. [Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act] It specifically prohibits the indirect cost formula from being changed. ”

US District Judges have been extended Temporary restraint order The cap is based on the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General and the University on February 21st.

Bhattacharya said he would follow the law, but suggested that the university’s use of indirect funds not publicly reported should be subject to public scrutiny.

“If confirmed, I absolutely promise to follow the law,” he said. “This is one of the issues that, for me, is an indicator of distrust in universities and scientific processes, so I would like to address them as well.”

Bhattacharya emphasized supporting the work of NIH scientists and their mission to improve American health. But Bhatacharya repeatedly emphasized his view that this mission has been drifting away in recent years.

Bhatacharya and Republican senators cited the obvious lack of progress in Alzheimer’s disease as an example. The 2006 Alzheimer’s Disease research paper served as a test stone for the major “amyloid cascade” hypothesis of the disease. Retracted in 2024 After being quoted hundreds of times.

Over the past 20 years, Surge in NIH fundingAlzheimer’s disease has doubled Alzheimer’s Disease Association.

Jay Bhattacharya is about the topics that most NIH directors enthusiastically avoid: Is NIH research annoyed or a complete scam? The false amyloid beta*56 protein in Alzheimer’s disease research is a perfect example. pic.twitter.com/4vjh4ed4lt

– Emily Copp (@emilyakoppp) March 5, 2025

Bhattacharya said it plans to introduce gain-of-function research regulations that will generate a new pandemic-responsive virus.

Bhattacharya called it Stigmatizing public discussion NIH-supported coronavirus research conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology – Collins and longtime director of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “Low Points of Science History” via a March 2020 natural medicine paper

“The net effect of this was a huge loss of confidence from Americans in the NIH and public health officials. You and I spoke about the important need to restore some of that credibility,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, Republican Sen., of Missouri.

“That episode is a low point in the history of science,” Bhatacharya said. “The top NIH officials have abused their position to hide their support for research that may have caused the pandemic. And I am committed to ensuring that all NIH activities, not just in the back, but all future activities are transparent and open to the American people and Congress.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.