Jay Bhattacharya’s confirmation hearing as the nominee to direct the National Institutes of Health raised some eyebrows, particularly due to his evasiveness on certain key issues. Despite his reluctance to address specific questions, Bhattacharya is widely expected to be confirmed, given his background as a wonky economist turned Covid-firebrand.
During the hearing, Bhattacharya carefully navigated questions about restoring funding to grants on LGBTQ issues, the debunked link between vaccines and autism, and the possibility of receiving illegal directives from President Trump. His responses seemed to prioritize avoiding conflict with the current administration over addressing concerns raised by both liberals and conservatives about the integrity of NIH science.
One notable instance of Bhattacharya’s cautious approach was his refusal to rule out spending additional money on research related to vaccines and autism, despite the extensive studies already conducted on the topic. This decision was seen as a nod to public distrust in science and an attempt to align with the priorities of Trump loyalists.
Additionally, Bhattacharya’s suggestion to audit universities on how they spend “indirect costs” was seen as a way to ensure transparency and accountability in the allocation of NIH grants. This move could potentially help improve efficiency and prevent misuse of funds in the research community.
Overall, Bhattacharya’s performance at the confirmation hearing highlighted his ability to straddle the line between supporting NIH science and appeasing the current administration. While his evasiveness may have raised some concerns among lawmakers and scientists, Bhattacharya’s confirmation is expected to proceed smoothly, cementing his position as the director of the National Institutes of Health.