Bhattacharya responds to Bethesda Declaration as NIH staff dissent

NIH staff have signed the Bethesda Declaration, accusing agency leadership of undermining science. But Bhattacharya and HHS say the claims are misguided—and that reform is essential to restore rigour.

On June 9, 2025, federal employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a pointed public statement - the Bethesda Declaration - challenging the agency’s direction under its new director, Dr Jay Bhattacharya.

Signed by 336 individuals—including 93 NIH staff who identified themselves and 243 others anonymously—the declaration accuses the agency’s leadership of undermining its scientific mission and compromising key partnerships with international collaborators.

The signatories allege that long-standing programs are being dismantled without transparency, peer review is being disrupted, and internal dissent is being marginalised.

But many of those claims are disputed by Bhattacharya and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who say the reforms are necessary to strengthen scientific standards and restore accountability.

A turbulent welcome

The declaration followed weeks of tension inside the NIH.

At a staff town hall in May, Bhattacharya addressed employees directly and raised the possibility that the Covid-19 pandemic may have stemmed from research partly funded by the agency.

“It’s possible that the NIH partly sponsored that research... If it’s true that we sponsored research that caused a pandemic... we have to make sure that we do not engage in research that’s any risk of posing any risk to human populations.”

Several employees walked out of the room as he spoke—an unusual public act of protest within the institution.

A Stanford physician and economist, Bhattacharya became a prominent critic of lockdowns and mandates during the pandemic and co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration.

For many disillusioned by the government’s Covid response, his voice was one of clarity and courage.

His appointment by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr signalled a shift toward reform at the NIH—emphasising rigour, transparency, and independence.

Addressing the claims

In response to the Bethesda Declaration, Bhattacharya said it contained “fundamental misconceptions” about the NIH’s recent policy direction. “Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.”

An HHS spokesperson added that the agency is working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process and ensure funding decisions are based on provable, testable hypotheses—not ideological narratives.

When projects have failed to meet these standards, they said, they’ve been discontinued so that resources can be redirected to more rigorous, impactful science.

This directly challenges the claim that cuts have been arbitrary or politically motivated. According to HHS, the changes reflect a return to scientific fundamentals—not an effort to suppress dissent.

No freeze on international science

The declaration also alleges that international research partnerships are being dismantled. But HHS strongly denies this.

“There has been no halt to legitimate international collaborations,” said an HHS spokesperson. “The current scrutiny of foreign subawards centers on ensuring accountability, which is a basic fiduciary responsibility. If a mechanic outsourced your brake repairs but refused to say to whom, would you trust them with your car again? Of course not. The same logic applies here: we must know where public funds go and who is responsible for the work.”

The aim, they said, is not to cut off global partnerships, but to ensure transparency and responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.

Fixing peer review, not undermining it

The declaration claims that peer review—the backbone of NIH grantmaking—is being undermined. But the NIH rejects that characterisation.

“The suggestion that we are disrupting the publication process via undermining peer review is a misunderstanding,” said the HHS spokesperson. “In reality, our efforts are designed to expand access to publishing while enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.”

Rather than weakening scientific standards, the NIH says it is addressing long-standing concerns about bias, lack of reproducibility, and low-value studies.

Realigning the workforce

The declaration also expresses concern about staffing changes, suggesting a purge of dissenting voices. The NIH acknowledges that terminations have taken place but says each case is under review.

“We are reviewing each case of termination to ensure appropriateness, and we’ve already reinstated some individuals,” said the HHS spokesperson. “Still, as NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing model to ensure alignment with our central mission and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

According to NIH leadership, the changes reflect a move toward a leaner, more accountable agency—not a political purge.

A moment of reckoning

The NIH remains one of the most powerful scientific institutions in the world, distributing more than US$45 billion in research funding each year. But it now faces a cultural reckoning.

For years, critics have argued that the agency had grown too insular, too political, and too resistant to change. Bhattacharya was brought in to challenge that status quo—and he is doing just that.

Reforms are underway to restore public trust in science by focusing on evidence, transparency, and accountability.

Bhattacharya’s willingness to speak openly, question orthodoxy, and confront difficult questions about the pandemic hasn’t endeared him to everyone at the NIH. But it is consistent with the conviction and courage he showed during Covid-19.

His challenge now is to translate that conviction into durable reform—and unify a divided institution around a renewed mission.

---