President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, on Wednesday fielded a wide swath of questions from senators that largely revolved around how he plans to restore public trust in the nation’s premier biomedical research agency. 

Bhattacharya, a physician and health economist from Stanford University, gained a public profile during the COVID-19 pandemic for his criticism of government restrictions and vaccine mandates.

Recommended Stories

• Trump NIH nominee pledges not to use aborted fetal products in research
• Here's the Medicaid math facing Republicans seeking $880 billion in deficit reduction
• Measles outbreak threatens US's 25-year elimination status: UN agency

His confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee was the first of several hearings for sub-agencies under the Department of Health and Human Service following the confirmation of public health establishment critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for HHS Secretary. 

Here are the highlights from Bhattacharya’s hearing:

Restoring trust in the NIH

Kennedy made “gold standard” science across HHS the central thrust of his Senate confirmation hearings, and Bhattacharya echoed similar points in discussing how he would reform NIH. 

Bhattacharya rose to prominence largely because of the social media censorship of his ideas related to government COVID-19 restriction policies and vaccinations, which contradicted guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH. 

During the hearing, Bhattacharya said that cultivating a culture of free speech and dissent among the scientific community is the only way to rebuild trust in the objectivity and integrity of NIH and biomedical research more broadly. 

“If science is a force for freedom and for knowledge, it will have universal support,” said Bhattacharya. 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said that the vast majority of people have only had experience with the NIH through the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci through the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the pandemic, leaving a sour taste that permeates the entire NIH. 

“Transparency and trust is going to have to be earned again from a lot of people,” Tuberville said. “Most people across this country don’t know what the hell ‘NIH’ stands for, but now they do because of COVID.”

Bhattacharya said that his academic research included studying the efficiency of the NIH itself, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He referenced the difficulty he experienced using Freedom of Information Act requests to gain insight into the NIH’s opaque operations as an example of the need to improve transparency.

“If I am confirmed as NIH Director, I fully commit to making sure that the American people can see all of the activities the NIH openly, with limited sort of obfuscation which has characterized, I think, unfortunately, the NIH’s way that they interacted with the American people,” Bhattacharya said. 

Vaccines and the cause of autism

HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-LA), also a physician, had several exchanges with Bhattacharya regarding the debunked connection between vaccines and autism.

Cassidy, who almost did not vote for Kennedy because of his claims that vaccines cause autism, pressed Bhattacharya on whether he agreed with Kennedy on the need to do more research disproving the vaccine-autism connection. 

Bhattacharya, a staunch critic of COVID-19 vaccine mandates, said that although he is convinced that vaccines do not cause autism, he recognizes the legitimate fears of parents amid rising rates of autism with no known cause. 

“We don’t need to address every idea or concern, but if those concerns result in parents not wanting to vaccinate their children for a vaccine that is well tested, my sense is, my inclination is to give people good data,” Bhattacharya said. 

He added that providing good data is “really the lever I have” should he be confirmed. 

When Cassidy questioned the utility of repeating the studies that have disproved the link between autism and vaccines, Bhattacharya said that the “vast, vast majority” of money should go toward pinpointing the causes of autism, not proving a negative. 

“We want answers. Parents want answers. Their kids are suffering, and the NIH ought to be doing this research that provides answers,” Bhattacharya said. 

Elon Musk actually calling the shots?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the leading member of the Democratic caucus on the committee, began his opening statement by saying that Bhattacharya, no matter his qualifications, will not be the real leader of policy at the NIH. 

Instead, Sanders said Elon Musk, Trump’s insider adviser and the head of the Department of Government Efficiency advisory body, or DOGE, would be the one calling the shots at the premier biomedical research agency. 

“Over the past several weeks, it has become abundantly clear that it really does not matter who the president nominates to be the director of the NIH, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful in saying that,” said Sanders, adding that “the real person in charge of all these federal agencies is Mr. Elon Musk.”

Musk has been sharply criticized by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans for his active role in setting policy. 

DOGE cuts have been targeted particularly at public health funding with the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and university grant funding through NIH.

NIH grant funding for universities

Democrats and Republicans questioned Bhattacharya about the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to cut NIH funding for so-called indirect costs on new and existing grant projects, a move that has universities and hospital systems scrambling for money. 

Indirect costs on NIH grants are essentially administrative overhead expenditures, ranging from funding internal ethics review boards for human experimentation to electricity bills and other maintenance expenses essential to keeping projects running. 

Last month, the Trump administration announced that it would cap all existing and new indirect cost expenditures at 15% of grants, effectively slashing $4 billion in biomedical research funding overnight. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) pressed Bhattacharya on the problem, saying that the funding cut directly contradicted appropriations statutes passed by Congress.

While Bhattacharya did not commit to reversing the Trump administration’s decision, he said he is going to “assess it on day one” and would consult with NIH counsel about the legality of the directive. 

He said that part of the reason for the cutting of so-called “indirect costs” is the decline in trust in public health from the pandemic era. 

“To me, it’s an indicator of distrust that some have of universities and the scientific process,” Bhattacharya said, “and so I want to make sure that we address those concerns as well.”

Regulating risky research

Bhattacharya said in his opening statement that one of his top priorities, if confirmed, would be to “vigorously regulate risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.” 

Although it was not referenced by name, Bhattacharya and several Republican senators used the term “risky research” to refer to the genetic manipulation of viruses and other pathogens that have the potential to cause a pandemic outbreak similar to that of COVID-19.

Risky biomedical research has been a hot topic in the scientific community for nearly two decades, but the debate came into public light during investigations into whether COVID-19 originated from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a member of the Senate health committee and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at reorganizing the structure of the NIH to discourage possibly risky research and increasing the oversight of such research projects.

TRUMP NIH NOMINEE PLEDGES NOT TO USE ABORTED FETAL PRODUCTS IN RESEARCH

Paul did not specifically question Bhattacharya on what his plans were to limit risky research, but Bhattacharya promised that he would work with senators and representatives in the House on the problem.

“I don’t think we should be doing any research that has the potential to cause the pandemic, and I want to work with Congress to make sure that happens,” Bhattacharya said.