The director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, stated on Steve Bannon’s podcast that contracts for mRNA research were being canceled because the public lacks trust in the technology. Bhattacharya blames declining uptake of the mRNA Covid-19 boosters on lack of public trust in the technology. But STAT reports that the “rationale for the cancellation of the contracts does not align with the explanation offered… by [Bhattacharya’s] boss, health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who said vaccines made using this platform were not effective and were unsafe.”
Experts say that the public does generally trust mRNA vaccines. In May, a KFF poll found that only 16 percent of Americans do not trust mRNA vaccines, while 52 percent would like more information. Scientist and clinician Ferric Fang calls this an “educational opportunity, not a justification to terminate research. [It’s] unbelievable to hear such nonsense from the NIH director.”
FERRIC FANG; [email protected]
Fang is a clinician-scientist. He oversees the clinical microbiology laboratory at Harborview, performs basic research at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and is editor-in-chief of Infection and Immunity.
Fang told the Institute for Public Accuracy that by eliminating mRNA research grants, “we are taking away our best tool for dealing with a future pandemic. That message isn’t getting out strongly enough.”
In May, a KFF poll found that less than 20 percent of Americans distrust the mRNA vaccines. “Most people don’t know enough to say. That means we can put out more information about this technology and disavow the false information floating around on social media. That’s what a real leader should do. What Bhattacharya is trying to do is justify his boss’s decision in a way to avoid criticism. If you have a life-saving technology but people think it’s dangerous, then you have an educational mission. If there’s distrust, it’s because people like Bhattacharya have created it and are spreading misinformation daily. You can’t spread misinformation and then say people mistrust the technology. The statement [from Bhattacharya] is also not factually accurate. Most people do trust the vaccines––they went and got them, and billions of doses were administered. But the policies have been decided at levels other than his. RFK Jr. is making the decisions, and they’re terrible and going to kill a lot of people. We have, at all these levels of public health, people unqualified to be in these positions. The people with expertise have been dismissed by RFK Jr.
“Jay Bhattacharya isn’t calling the shots here. Bhattacharya is not a scientist; he’s an economist with only one NIH grant under his belt. He doesn’t understand what it’s like to run a lab, do basic science research, how much time is invested in work that’s not fruitful, how difficult it is to get the data to put into a paper and fight to get it published and get a study section review of your work. He is enormously underqualified to be in this position. He has no experience within the NIH. He’s a stooge.
“Some of the things Bhattacharya’s boss [RFK Jr.] is saying are so outrageous. He’s facing angry scientists at the NIH. When RFK Jr. says that mRNA technology is dangerous and that it’s killing more people than it helps, Bhattacharya can’t say those words because people at the NIH will stick it down his throat. So instead, he says things like ‘mRNA vaccine distrust.’ That’s him trying to say something that he thinks he can defend.
“I have been continuously funded by the NIH for 40 years. I know this process intimately. Bhattacharya can blithely make these policies to review grants and take away the ones that don’t align with [the administration’s] priorities, but these studies have gone through so many levels of review and have been selected as best of the best. People have invested time and emigrated to the U.S. to work in these labs. Their salaries depend on it. No responsible scientist would think it’s reasonable [to cancel these contracts]. Normally, a new administration’s priorities would be reflected in new initiatives. They would put more money into a new line of investigation––but not pull the rug out from existing projects or withhold funding they’ve committed to.
“I’ve noticed that active working scientists are intimidated about speaking up because the [Trump] administration is so transparent in terms of misusing the tools of government to intimidate and punish people who criticize it. I have colleagues who speak up––people who are outside of the country or have retired or no longer have NIH funding––because they feel they don’t have a way to be punished. But we would be more powerful if all of us spoke up, if all of the universities stood shoulder to shoulder. This government is so vicious and has made it clear that if they think you’re a threat to their interests, they will do everything they can to prevent you from doing your work…
“Scientists need to step up to mitigate the damage being done to the tremendous scientific enterprise being destroyed before our eyes. This is not a time to keep silent. Scientists like to keep apolitical. Most of the time that’s fine, but not now.”