If one wants to point to some of the most dangerous moves that the inchoate Trump administration could make, it would be hard to find a more vicious example than that now proposed by President-elected Donald Trump’s choice to head the National Institutes for Health and his plans to fight culture wars. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya now wants to reverse cancel or condition grants for research based on a university’s policies that he believes are punitive toward conservatives. Some of his agenda seems based on dubious science floated by the alternative right and some of it looks to be targeted directly at simple diversity programs.
Linking scientific research, especially ground-breaking medical studies, to social programs of any type (And this would be just as applicable in reverse, I just haven’t seen it) is beyond irresponsible and is the definition of self-defeating. If they insist on manipulating the policies put in place by higher educational institutions, some of which are private, then do it with federal money that funds university programs. As noted in The Independent, this is at best counter-productive and maliciously-motivated cruelty as one gets deeper:
Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and economist at Stanford, reportedly wants to target so called “cancel culture” at a number of top progressive universities, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Those with knowledge of Bhattacharya’s thinking told the newspaper that he’s considering linking the doling out of billions in federal research grants to a measure of “academic freedom” on campuses and punishing those that apparently don’t adequately embrace perspectives championed by conservatives.
First, it seems self-evident that a private university should be able to set any policy it wants with respect to any commitment to diversity and inclusion – which is not in any way anti-conservative unless one says that conservatives are by nature against inclusion of minorities or marginalized groups, something that should be proven in individual cases before assumed as blanketed among all Trump-supporters. As for public universities – that policy should be set by the state funding it.
Second, medical research is funded in response to merit as demonstrated by grant applications submitted not by the institutions but by the professor of medicine (Or biology, chemistry, genetic engineering, whatever it may be) in charge of the study and is wholly independent of any university policy. It is fundamentally unfair and manipulative to tie any individual’s grant proposal to anything but scientific merit. It should not be used as a social tool. Moving on:
Bhattacharya wants to take on what he views as academic conformity in science, which pushed him aside over his criticism of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He suggested in a Wall Street Journal op ed in 2020 that only up to 40,000 Americans would be killed by the pandemic. More than 1.2 million people died.
Forget his wrong-headed view on COVID briefly. The issue is prioritizing or canceling research. That prioritization can factor in to funding previously eschewed more conservative approaches to vaccines and such – fine (I guess), but not at the expense of other highly merited and promising research by a scientist whose work has absolutely nothing to do with university policy and everything to do with saving lives.
I pulled a random Nobel Prize – 2018, the prize went to Dr. James P. Allison (In part) who is a professor of medicine at the University of Texas and based out of the Houston MD Anderson cancer center. The Nobel Committee awarded the prize for research into immuno-therapy for cancer treatment. Does Allison have anything to do with the University of Texas’s policy on anything? Of course, not. His research is nothing more and nothing less than his pursuit of cures and hard scientific research through a peer-reviewed process. Tying any future grant to his research – as but an example, or anyone else’s, is a means to drive medical research out of the country, and possibly have it stagnate all-together. The cost to twist arms on simple diversity policies – or whatever they may be – is wholly unrelated and is nothing more than a political hammer. Cancel culture, just in reverse.
It is true that the federal government isn’t under an obligation to fund anything. It can likely constitutionally tie research money to whatever it wants. This would be true both ways in that the federal government also ties grants for tuition guarantees to compliance with Title IX and other civil rights initiatives (Where “Title IX” gets its name). Implementing his plan would undoubtedly be “constitutional.”
The difference between Title IX “type” of financial link and this – for medical research -is that Title IX is a law passed by Congress and directly related to the actual policies in place for admissions and tuition. This is individualized to something having nothing to do with policies and is not backed to enforce any law – only decreed priorities. Not that one should support lifting funding for tuition and other programs – but at least there is a tie.
This is a stunning proposal that will chill scientific research in what has been the global leader in basic science progress of the type that wins Nobel prizes. The fact that Bhattacharya will likely be the director of the NIH limits his proposal to medical research, again – possible cures cancer, maybe infectious disease, neurological conditions, all of it and could actually cost lives that might otherwise be prolonged through groundbreaking stuff. Kind of amazing that such an election could result in such far-reaching and otherwise wholly unrelated activity.
But here we are. Yet again, we see an incoming administration that is more punitive-looking (Backwards) than productive going forward. They have the right to put their policies in place. But why they would want to in this type of setting – over and above why it’s a huge priority to begin with – is hard to understand, almost impossible to swallow.
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak – now also on Bluesky.
“It is true that the federal government isn’t under an obligation to fund anything.”
Isn’t it?
What are they going to do with all that tax money then?
How about over a hundred years of precedent that they DO FUND things that have improved everyone’s lives and fortunes?
And that choosing what to fund and how to do it is THE SOLE PURPOSE of government?
I must admit to puzzling more than a little bit about your attitudes, drives and motives of being here on this site Jason.
Being charitable, did you mean to say,
“It is true that the federal government isn’t under an obligation to fund everything.” ?
Jason has a point. The Constitution says almost nothing about what the federal govt. should or should not fund. It provides the mechanism for elected officials to decide what needs to be done and how much money to allocate for getting those things done.
When it comes to research, much has already been lost without our having realized it. Grant money comes with expectations of specific goals for specifically outlined objectives and it’s become damned near impossible for those who do research to get the money to just conduct research for general knowledge without some specific objective in mind. That kind of thinking is “wasteful” in modern science or so the attitude goes. Yet the electron and x-ray were discovered without any specific goal or purpose in mind. Yet we know live in a world and on technology that runs on the harnessing of electrons! And modern medicine. Think about the advances made because of the discovery of the x-ray which saved countless lives and helped heal even more injuries. And (with those electrons) led to ever more sophisticated imaging.
Also, much that gets discovered because we were looking for something specific for a specific purpose turns out to have far broader use.
But getting back to what Jason was saying the fact is that a lot of discretion is involved with allocating federal money for research. Much, if not the bulk of it could be cut if Congress doesn’t step in. Or re-allocated for dubious ‘research.’ I shudder at re-directing federal grant money to “Christian” universities to conduct “research” into things like “cures” for homosexuality for example.
Of course, the top folks will simply want that money given to them via tax cuts! IOW Team Trump won’t have much trouble misusing a boatload of money currently going to legitimate research.
Thank you.
My only point was that it is constitutional.
How someone can attack that baseline truth (And then ignore the point I made about how awful it would all be) is sort of bewildering.
Trying to stay objective to stay sane.
jason
Having said that I should clarify a tiny bit. The federal government is not obligated to fund research, education, anything really – except maybe national defense and the post office (Maybe a few others).
But once they do decide to fund research, it cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, etc. as violating the Civil Rights Act among others – maybe the Constitutional under the Equal Protection clause – maybe.
It can discriminate on a policy point among non-suspect classes – other scientists are not a suspect class.
It is somewhat analogous to the federal government setting 55 mmph as the national speed limit. It had no authority to do so. But it tied federal highway funds to a demand that the state have the speed limit bc there is no requirment that the fed government provide state highway funds. They can pull money back for policy reasons.
My only objective point was that – the plainly terrible, but it wouldn’t be overturned by the courts – that’s it, that was all, etc.
I’ve discussed my “motives” with Con in a productive private email.
jason