Improving Science & Restoring Trust in Public Health | Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Concerns about the importance of balancing basic and applied research funding are voiced, pinpointing the vital role of the NIH in supporting research that ultimately benefits public health in America and globally.

NIH's Mission: Support Research to Advance American and Global Health

The NIH's commitment to advancing health and longevity for Americans is underscored by the remarks of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who insists on the importance of translating biomedical research into real-world results that improve the well-being of the American populace, regardless of their background. He finds it troubling that, despite considerable investments, there's no significant increase in U.S. life expectancy from 2012 to 2019, a period during which European life expectancy did improve.

Bhattacharya extols the NIH as the linchpin of American biomedicine, having funded research essential to nearly every contemporary drug and influencing health advice around sleep, diet, etc. This acclaim acknowledges the NIH's essential role in supporting biomedical scientists and their careers globally.

The NIH's expansive portfolio has historically included significant basic science work—research critical for advancements in biology, yet not patentable and outside the specific interest of any companies. Bhattacharya emphasizes that while basic science is important, its value is in its potential to translate into health improvements, a point on which he strongly believes there should be consensus within the new NIH administration.

Debate On Funding Balance Between Basic and Applied Research

The debate about the NIH's funding comprises basic versus applied research priorities. Huberman notes how the NIH model uses taxpayer dollars to fund basic research, providing a fertile ground for findings that may be beneficial for diseases. This research sometimes lacks an immediate connection to human health, as illustrated by studies such as the pigmentation patterns of Doberman Pinscher noses.

However, foundational research like the discovery of DNA's structure, which Bhattacharya cites as an example, is key to breakthroughs in fields like cancer treatments. Huberman recalls how basic research into the visual system by Hubel and Wiesel—funded by the NIH—was pivotal for crucial childhood vision correction insights.

Moreover, Bhattacharya points to disparities in NIH funding across different states and institutions, considering the unequal distribution a flaw, particularly since the federal government has a stake in nurturing the scientific infrastructure for the American public.

While some worry that the NIH might reduce its commitment to basic research, Bhattacharya assures that both basic and applied research are deemed vital by NIH leadership and will be preserved. Basic research funding has led to hypothesis-generating experiments, including significant NIH investments like billions of dollars in gene array single-cell sequencing. Descriptive work in science that the NIH funds might not follow a hypothesis-driven model but still contributes to foundational knowledge.

Nonetheless, applied research where advances are utilized to develop treatments for diseases is also supported by the NIH. Huberman references patented products resulting from taxpayer-funded research as integral to public health enhancement by translating basic science into actual treatments.

NIH's Multi-Facete ...

Growing Awareness: Many Scientific Findings Fail Replication

Andrew Huberman and Jay Bhattacharya engage in a discussion regarding the challenges that lead to the so-called replication crisis. They explain how even small differences in experimental protocols can lead to variable results and how the reliability of biomedical literature is doubtful without independent replication. The crisis has become public due to high-profile cases such as questionable findings in Alzheimer's research. Linda Buck's retraction of papers without harming her career is cited, illustrating that truthfulness can be beneficial.

"Replication Crisis" Erodes Trust in Science as Reliability Is Questioned

John Ioannidis's 2005 paper questioned the reliability of published research findings and this has contributed to a growing skepticism among the public and scientific community alike. Both Huberman and Bhattacharya discuss the crisis of confidence, acknowledging that a significant portion of the scientific literature might be false positives.

NIH Plan:

Dr. Bhattacharya details initiatives designed to validate scientific findings and incentivize replication. He suggests that the NIH is considering changes to support replication efforts, acknowledging the need for a significant shift in the incentive and funding structure for scientists.

Funding and Careers For Scientists Replicating Key Studies

Bhattacharya indicates a proposed shift in NIH policy that would offer support and create a career path for scientists engaging in replication work. This would change the current situation where replication work is not typically awarded large grants, hindering scientific career progression.

Establish NIH Journal For Replication Studies and Negative Results

Bhattacharya mentions that the NIH plans to create a journal dedicated to replication studies and negative results, increasing the visibility and perceived importance of these efforts. This initiative is part of a broader approach to restore confidence in scientific research.

Metrics to Evaluate Scientists' Contributions: Focus On Reproducibility, Transparency, Output

Bhattacharya and Huberman discuss an overhaul of the metric system for evaluating scientific contributions. This new system wo ...

The Covid-19 pandemic brought forth a slew of public health policies, sparking significant controversy and impacting the very discourse of science.

Criticism of Public Health Authorities for Unsupported Policy Decisions Like School Closures and Child Mask Mandates

Andrew Huberman and Jay Bhattacharya discuss the backlash experienced by scientists who criticized public health authorities over unsupported policies such as school closures and child mask mandates.

Scientists Faced Backlash, Including Career and Safety Threats

Bhattacharya faced backlash, including threats to his career at Stanford University and safety. He recalls pressure from the Dean of the Medical School to stop engaging with the press and a directed poster campaign falsely accusing him of causing deaths. This hostile environment was a result of his opposition to measures such as school closures and child mask mandates, which he claims lacked a solid scientific backing. Bhattacharya also faced death threats after advocating against lockdowns.

Bhattacharya's colleague Martin Kulldorff faced job loss at Harvard University for not taking the COVID vaccine, despite having recovered from the virus.

Enforcing a "Consensus" Narrative Eroded Public Trust in Health Institutions and Science

This strategy of pushing a unified public health message has led to a widespread mistrust in science, as Bhattacharya suggests that the misinformation about the efficacy of cloth masks could have had lethal consequences.

Scientific Community Urged to Admit Mistakes and Embrace Transparency and Diversity

A major point of contention is the belief that the scientific community needs to own up to its mistakes during the pandemi ...

The complexities and challenges that early-career scientists encounter in today’s research environment create barriers to innovation and risk-taking. Bhattacharya and Huberman engage in a critical discussion about the predicaments young researchers face and the potential strategies for promoting groundbreaking work in science.

Academic Incentives Favor "Safe" Research Over Innovation for Early-Career Scientists Seeking Funding and Tenure

Bhattacharya and Huberman critically assess the current funding mechanisms that stifle creativity and propose changes to revive inventive inquiry among young researchers.

Concerning Trend Of Decreasing Originality in Scientific Findings

Huberman expresses disappointment at the ongoing trend of incremental research and highlights a study showing a movement towards less originality in scientific papers. From the 1980s to the 2010s, the novelty of ideas in biomedical papers drastically reduced, with current research focused on ideas that are years older compared to the 1980s. Jay Bhattacharya addresses the issue of embedded conservatism in NIH grant review panels, which can result in a decrease in originality and productivity in the scientific world.

To combat these shortcomings, Bhattacharya and Huberman suggest investing more in young scientists who are typically more inclined towards innovative, high-risk research due to their high [restricted term] levels and inherent motivation. They advocate for academic structures that equally prioritize originality and breakthrough ideas.

Huberman and Bhattacharya's dialogue underscores the need for a balanced distribution of NIH funding that is not skewed towards top-funded institutions like Stanford and Harvard. This change could provide the support necessary for early-career scientists to test their ideas and make significant discoveries.

Encouragingly, Bhattacharya hints at a shift in NIH funding priorities to favor ambitious projects over well-established scientists' incremental work. Furthermore, he supports creating funding for younger labs, emphasizing the importance of giving researchers an opportunity to be inventive early in their careers when they are most hungry for success.

Encourage Risk-Taking and Breakthrough Discoveries, NIH Plans to:

The discussion details how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to foster innovation and support early-career scientists in engaging in high-risk research projects.

Offer Long-Term Grants for Early-Career Researchers' High-Risk Projects

Huberman advocates for larger and longer grants for new investigators, enabling them to take risks and potentially make significant discoveries. This suggests the NIH’s potential plan to offer long-term grants designed to sustain early-career scientists' ambitious projects.

Metrics to Evaluate Scientific Productivity Beyond Publication and Citation Counts

There is a call to revise the metrics of success in scie ...

As Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, current NIH Director, and Andrew Huberman delve into the arena of public health and scientific consensus, it becomes clear that ideological forces and internal pressures have had a profound impact on shaping policies and the understanding of scientific data.

Pandemic Public Health Policies Driven by Ideology Over Science

Bhattacharya recounts his disillusionment with the academic freedom he expected at Stanford, even as a tenured professor, indicating a prevalent issue of ideology influencing scientific discourse. He characterizes scientific groupthink as a byproduct of geographical concentration and interaction within ideologically homogeneous circles. He advocates for geographic dispersion of scientific support to engender a broad spectrum of scientific ideas, countering this groupthink.

Suppressing Dissent Enforced a "Consensus" Narrative, Even When Data Was Unclear or Contradictory

Both Bhattacharya and Huberman observe that the pandemic’s public health messaging, including lockdowns and vaccine mandates, seemed enforced as a consensus narrative, uniform across various countries, and ideologically rather than scientifically driven. Bhattacharya views the enforcement of lockdowns as an unnecessary policy that caused collateral damage, echoing concerns that these decisions were not grounded in empirical science.

NIH Admits Trust in Science Must Be Restored

Amidst the backdrop of pandemic responses, Bhattacharya discusses race essentialism, suggesting that an undue NIH focus on racial identity for funding could distort science investments and cause public distrust. He insists that the focus should be on advancing knowledge and health benefits, not on race. Bhattacharya's personal experience with suppressed dissent at Stanford, where he had to self-organize a conference to present alternative views to lockdowns, exemplifies the institutional pressures constraining scientific debate.

Agency to Foster Open Discourse, Welcoming Diverse Perspectives and Empirical Debate

Bhattacharya emphasizes the NIH's role in fostering open discourse by making funded research freely accessible to the public. He points out the need for diversity in scientific inquiry, not based on racial identity but on the merit of ideas, advancing a policy that ensures all research funded by NIH can be accessed by the public upon publication.

Rebuilding Trust in Scientific Integrity and I ...