Jay Bhattacharya faces Senate scrutiny in bid for NIH leadership

Mar 06, 2025

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist renowned for his criticism of Covid-19 lockdowns, appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labour, and Pensions (HELP) Committee on 5 March.

His nomination to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH) came under intense scrutiny, with senators grilling him on vaccines, lockdowns, and the agency’s funding priorities.

Bhattacharya’s opening statement set the tone.

“I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science & scientific dissent at the NIH,” he asserted. “Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differed from theirs.”

He continued, “Dissent is the very essence of science. I will foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early career scientists and those who disagree with me, can express disagreement respectfully.”

Vaccine questions dominate early exchanges

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a physician, challenged Bhattacharya on vaccines and autism.

“Can you state unequivocally that vaccines do not cause autism?” Cassidy asked.

Bhattacharya replied, “I don’t generally believe there is a link, based on my reading of the literature. But what I have seen is that there’s tremendous distrust in science coming out of the pandemic.”

Cassidy pushed back. “It’s been exhaustively studied. If we keep revisiting this, we’ll never move forward.”

Bhattacharya acknowledged the strength of the data on MMR vaccines but pointed to a deeper issue. “The rise in autism rates in this country remains unexplained.”

Cassidy dismissed the sceptics. “People still think Elvis is alive. So, if you just say someone disagrees with me, and therefore I'm going to put precious, limited taxpayer dollars to this – and not address the issues of obesity, heart disease, cancer – we've lost. There's an opportunity cost.”

Bhattacharya remained resolute: “I’m convinced we have good data on MMR and autism. But if people don’t agree, the best tool I have is to provide clear, honest data.”

Lockdowns: Republicans support Bhattacharya’s stance

As the conversation shifted to Covid-19 lockdowns, Bhattacharya found backing from several Republican senators who highlighted his co-authorship of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Senator Jim Banks (R-IN) was blunt: “You were undeniably right about all of it.”

Bhattacharya, remaining humble, responded with evidence: “Millions of children were out of school for years. The rates of suicidality and depression are through the roof. Learning loss will have consequences throughout their entire life.”

“There were people who skipped their cancer screenings, who now have late-stage cancer that should have been caught earlier. There are trillions of dollars we spent that actually caused the inflation we still suffer from.”

He added, “Early in the pandemic, the UN estimated almost 100 million people would face starvation due to economic dislocation caused by lockdowns. This was a devastating policy that didn't need to happen.”

Democrats probe NIH funding and Big Pharma influence

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) questioned Bhattacharya on job cuts within the NIH, pressing him on whether he would restore lost positions and other funding cuts.

“I’ll look carefully at personnel decisions,” he replied. “But I haven’t been involved in the prior cuts.”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) raised significant concerns about drug prices, highlighting that despite billions of dollars in taxpayer expenditure, Americans pay far more for medications than people in other countries.

“Should a company that benefits from taxpayer dollars' research be able to charge any price that they want, or should we attach to those contracts a reasonable pricing clause that says, hey, if we help develop this drug and it's effective, you're going to have to charge a reasonable price for it?” asked Senator Sanders.

Bhattacharya acknowledged that previous NIH directors had stated this was very difficult for the NIH director to address alone but expressed his willingness to work with Congress to achieve that goal.

Foetal Tissue Research

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) raised the issue of aborted foetal tissue in NIH-funded research, a practice that has contributed to medical breakthroughs, including the development of the polio vaccine.

“Will you prohibit the use of aborted foetal tissue in NIH-funded research?” Hawley asked.

Bhattacharya responded cautiously. “I’ll absolutely follow the lead of Secretary Kennedy and President Trump on this.”

He added, “We need alternatives to foetal stem cell lines that are not just ethically acceptable but also scientifically sound.”

Hawley seemed satisfied, though the issue remains contentious.

Chronic Disease Prevention

Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), a physician, asked Bhattacharya about his vision for researching the causes and treatments of chronic disease, particularly the role of diet and nutrition.

Bhattacharya’s response was clear.

“The chronic disease problem is something the NIH ought to have done a better job addressing over the last several decades. The mission of the NIH is to improve the health and extend the life expectancy of the American people. And we have not achieved that,” he said bluntly. “It has flatlined.”

He stressed the need for open-minded research.

“We need to have a lot more tolerance [for the possibility] that the top scientists, who control the ideas in their fields, may be wrong. We need to allow other scientists who have other ideas - and “food is medicine” might be one of them - to have support.”

Looking Ahead

The HELP Committee will now decide whether to advance Bhattacharya’s nomination to the full Senate.

His five key priorities—tackling chronic disease, upholding scientific integrity, protecting free speech in research, funding innovation, and regulating gain-of-function research—are set to remain central to the debate.

For those who felt stifled by the rigid mandates of public health during the pandemic, his remarks offered both relief and a refreshing departure from the status quo.

“Science should be an engine for knowledge and freedom, not something that stands on top of society and says you must do this or else,” Bhattacharya stated.

While he may not be the NIH director the establishment expected, he could be exactly the kind of leader the institution needs. With the hearing behind him, his confirmation now appears highly likely.

Give a gift subscription