Last week, 27 minutes after the staffed city hall, Dr. Jay Batacharya, director of the U.S. National Institute of Health, confirmed he would enter unpleasant territory.
“This is tough for me,” Batacharya said she introduced one of the most divisive topics in science to an audience of researchers and other NIH employees who gathered in the auditorium at the headquarters of the Biomedical Research Agency in Bethesda, Maryland last Monday.
“The (Covid-19) pandemic may have been caused by human-based research,” he said, according to a video obtained by CNN. “And it’s also possible that the NIH partially sponsored the research. If that’s true -.”
At that point, Bhatacharya paused after seeing dozens of NIH staff standing up and leaving the auditorium.
“It’s good to have freedom of speech,” he said with a smile. “Welcome, everyone.”
After that, the Bhatacharya lasted.
“If it’s true that we sponsored the research that sparked the pandemic, and if you look at American polls, that’s what most people believe, and I saw scientific evidence. I believe it.
NIH Director’s strike during town hall
The strike was a mild protest, one Batacharya – former professor of health policy and economics at Stanford During the Covid-19 pandemic, he frequently claimed that he was censored for expressing opinions against those who were in the US scientific leadership at the time – called “silent opposition” later in the city hall.
It represents not only a disagreement with Bhatacharya’s claim that the NIH could be held responsible for any kind of responsibility for the pandemic that has killed more than 7 million people around the world, but also a disappointment. It’s a view that is not shared by many Expert virologists and epidemiologists believe it is likely that the virus has emerged due to the spillover from animals.
It was also a pre-planned protest against working conditions. Staff told CNN that Bhattacharya had made those comments and he only chose to leave a little earlier than intended. They said they were designed to convey frustration over the inability of scientists to do their job under the second administration.
“We are a NIH postdoctoral researcher, Dr. Kaitlyn Hajdarovic, said: Like others who spoke to CNN, she emphasized that in her personal abilities she speaks as a member of a union representing around 5,000 early career researchers at NIH.
Hajdarovic and others described the issue of obtaining material for research as those making the purchase were rejected. Scientist colleague fires and re-adoption. Fear of the proposed 40% being cut to the NIH budget. And general confusion and unpredictability that destroys daily work.
“We were trying to use this strike as a way to have a sit-in meeting with Dr. Bhatacharya,” said Dr. Matt Manion, another NIH postdoctoral researcher and member. “We asked at least twice because he took over the role.”
Members had planned to join in with others from the agency and leave the town hall at the start of Bhatacharya time. Bhattacharya and his Chief of Staff Seana Cranston pointed out several times that around 1,200 questions have been submitted and answered by choosing “hard ones.”
“Having such a pre-planned city hall is not a replacement for actually sitting with a scientist doing research to improve the health of the American people,” Brown said.
In response to CNN’s request for comment, a spokesman for HHS said: “At City Hall on Monday, the NIH director openly addressed staff to ask questions that were not criticized by the audience.
Brown retorted that the group’s opponents “based on the incredible damages that have been inflicted on taxpayer-funded biomedical research over the past four months. Protecting research into diseases such as cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease is worth more than a short question and answer session.”
“Looking for another pandemic”
Still, the strike was planned for another reason, but the gain-of-feature comments didn’t work. One NIH scientist has commented on a new policy that bans foreign sub-award grants, or submitted a research funding arrangement in which grant recipients pass on some of the funds to foreign collaborators. The White House budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 cited funding from the Wuhan Institute of Virology Institute as part of the proposed reasoning that it cut NIH’s NIH research funding by approximately $18 billion.
“The idea that lab leakage theory can be used as a justification to cancel all foreign sub-Gregorian calendars is ridiculous,” the scientist said. “They do it for purely political and/or ideological reasons.
“Whether you agree with the theory or not, foreign sub-awards support research to prevent the next pandemic,” the scientist added. “Canceling them all with little or no warning calls for another pandemic.”
A spokesman for HHS said, “NIH moves from foreign sub-awards to foreign sub-projects to ensure that all recipients of the US taxpayer dollar, whether domestic or international, are retained to the same strict standards of surveillance, accountability and transparency.”
There were other points of tension between the city hall.
At one point, Bhatacharya asked previously submitted questions about NIH’s approach to diversity, equity and inclusion. This was an issue targeted by the Trump administration, and has ended numerous research grants.
“The question is how should we define health disparity research in a way that clearly separates it from the DEI while continuing to address the costly consequences of health disparity in the United States?” Cranston urged Battacharya.
Bhattacharya replied, “My own research focuses on vulnerable populations, and in a very often it means minority populations.”
But he continued. “There was a series of research supported by the NIH, which means I fundamentally don’t believe that I am actually scientific.
To provide examples, Bhattacharya cited redlining, or racism in housing and lending practices.
“Did you imagine a study looking at the effects of redlines on people’s access to health care? It’s a completely legitimate kind of study,” Bhatacharya said. “I think it’s a completely legitimate kind of study for the NIH to support.”
Then a member of the audience spoke. “So why does the NIH end them?” she said.
“I’m sorry, but the NIH has not finished these studies,” replied Bhattacharya. “I want to distinguish –”
“Oh, I don’t agree!” The audience fired back as a colleague applauded.
“Let it finish,” Bhatacharya said. “Therefore, other types of research are, for example, what I would like to distinguish is, “structural racism leads to poor health for ethnic minorities.” ”
“What do you think the red lining is?” the audience said.
“The problem there is that it is not a scientific hypothesis,” Bhatacharya argued. “In principle, we can’t think of a way to test the hypothesis that in principle it can be forged.”
The director also told NIH staff that he had arrived on the day of mass layoffs as part of a cut in the power of the HHS or as part of the RIF on April 1, and that he had no say.
HHS said it has cut 1,200 employees from the NIH.
“In fact, there is no transparency as to how these decisions were made,” Bhatacharya said. “And I was pretty upset about it. I think it’s fine to have some say. ”
Bhattacharya said it attempted to improve the conditions as it arrived based on feedback from employees, including reverting the purchase card and allowing travel to the meeting. He also suggested that employees should stop the requirement to send weekly emails detailing five things they have achieved.
“I’ve heard you guys have to score five points each week,” Batacharya said. “It was ridiculous. I’m really proud that there’s no need for some of the best scientists in the world to tell you what they did with five points last week. That didn’t make any sense.”
The audience praised it. And later in the program, Bhattacharya asked some questions from the audience, but this is not planned. Bhattacharya replied that she couldn’t hear the video reviewed by Video CNN.
A week after the city hall, members said they had not yet heard from Bhatacharya’s office about the meeting schedule.