10 Takeaways from "The Man Who Fought Fauci - and Won" That Suggest A Bright Future for the NIH

10 takeaways from the December 6, 2024, Wall Street Journal article, "The Man Who Fought Fauci—and Won," that can help PREDICT how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) might change for the better under Jay Bhattacharya's leadership.

Takeaway #1 - no more "devastating takedowns"

Key quote: "I think the main thing is that I know what abuse of power in this position looks like, having been exposed to it, and I will never do that.”

Having personally experienced how the previous NIH director used their position of authority to try to destroy his career, as well as the careers of Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Jay is determined to lead differently. He will be committed to avoiding abuse of power, decentralizing decision-making, and fostering a culture of independent thought and free expression—not surrounding himself with mediocre "yes men," "toadies," or "boot-lickers."

Takeaway #2 - a commitment to restoring public trust

Key quote: “Instead of this haughty relationship, where the scientists sit above the public and say, ‘Look, you can’t think that,’ or ‘You’ll be censored if you say that,’ they need to remember that they are servants of the American people. The people are the ones paying the bills.”

As NIH Director, Jay will lead by example, demonstrating how to engage with the public respectfully rather than dismissing them as ignorant or conspiratorial. The NIH will work to rebuild public trust through tangible actions that show people they are valued stakeholders, not merely subjects of top-down authority. Scientists will be encouraged to listen actively, fostering a culture of empathy and collaboration. This approach will help restore the NIH's core mission: "To seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability."

Takeaway #3 - no need for the "FOIA lady"

Key quote: "Any reform of America’s scientific institutions must ensure that they 'work for the people again'."

The NIH will prioritize transparency. It will actively cooperate with democratically elected officials. A FOIA officer should be unnecessary because there should be nothing to hide from the public. NIH-funded scientists will be encouraged to assist lawmakers (where scientific input would be a factor in policy making), by providing accurate and truthful scientific information as needed.

Takeaway #4 - funding research that supports life, not threatens it

Key quote: “We spend $8 billion to $10 billion a year on infectious disease when we should be spending proportionally more on chronic diseases that kill Americans at higher rates.”

NIH funding will be rebalanced to prioritize critical health risks such as heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases that have been historically underfunded, while eliminating research that just caused a pandemic. This shift aims to address the legitimate concerns of chronic disease communities--e.g., Lyme, long COVID, vaccine injured, etc.--who have often been dismissed or ignored. These communities have valid reasons for skepticism, as they have frequently encountered talk and no action.

Takeaway #5 - incentivizing truth and disincentivizing fraud

Key quote: “Another issue I intend to address is the major problem of scientific fraud.”

The NIH will launch initiatives to promote a culture that prioritizes and rewards reproducibility in research. It will advocate for journal reforms to eliminate gatekeeping and remove incentives that encourage publishing fraudulent studies in high-impact journals. Additionally, the NIH will refer individuals suspected of fraud or misconduct to the Office of Research Integrity for thorough investigation.

Takeaway #6 - platforming "Science From The Fringe”

Key quote: “There’s understandably some pressure to show results in terms of breakthroughs that improve health. But if you invest, the right approach is a portfolio, some safe bets and some riskier things, where you expect some failure but also some tremendous breakthroughs.”

Jay understands that breakthroughs often emerge from the "fringe," so some unconventional ideas may receive funding. Some of these projects might make it onto Rand Paul's annual "Festivus" report for perceived wasteful spending. Maybe Senator Paul could invite Jay (and/or the NIH-funded researcher) to defend any NIH-funded project that winds up listed on the Festivus report to defend their work--how about an event to raise money to help pay off the national debt?

Takeaway #7 - platforming "Science From The Young"

Key quote: "In the 1980s, the median age of the researchers when they won their first large grant was in the mid-30s. Now it’s in the mid-40s.” A large grant means that “you can make your own lab, essentially launch your career. But now it’s become more of an old man’s club...That’s not the right phrase. The NIH has not given support for the ideas of younger people that it once did...It’s younger people who have and test the newer ideas. So when you have an institution that’s having less support for them, you’re going to get fewer new revolutionary ideas in science.”

Expect the NIH to implement processes that will lead to increases in funding for younger researchers, recognizing their role in generating and testing revolutionary ideas that drive progress in science. Prioritizing support for early-career scientists, is part of the strategy to rejuvenate the NIH’s culture of innovation and ensure that fresh perspectives are valued in biomedical research.

Takeaway #8 - the NIH will stay in its lane

Key quote: “The goal of science isn’t to tell you how to live your life, it’s to discover truths about nature so that we can develop, in biomedical sciences, better ways to care for human health.”

What it means: The NIH will adhere to its core mission of discovering truths about nature and improving human health, rather than dictating societal behavior or suppressing dissenting opinions.

Takeaway #9 - the end of institutionalized bigotry

Key Quote: “Dr. Fauci decided that if you contradicted him, you weren’t just contradicting Fauci, you were contradicting science itself.”

The NIH plans to tackle the "hubris" and group-think that emerged among pandemic-era scientists by introducing policies to counteract scientific arrogance and foster a culture of open, respectful discourse. These reforms will focus on eliminating journal gatekeeping, increasing transparency, and decentralized decision making. In addition, the ubiquitous Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have corrupted science and promoted a culture of self-censorship and intolerance, will be dismantled across government agencies and at institutions that receive federal funding.

Takeaway #10: principles and purpose

Key Quote:“I believe very strongly that I have a purpose in life, and I’m supposed to use my gifts for this purpose: to improve the health and well-being of the poor, the vulnerable, and the working class.”

All of Jay's decisions—whether as a future NIH director or in his role as a teacher, father, husband, son, friend, or, to those who oppose him, a perceived adversary—are guided by his faith and a profound commitment to using his expertise and time remaining on earth to improve the health and well-being of all. He recognizes the humanity even in his fiercest critics, including those who hate him or have threatened his life. He remains committed to ensuring that vulnerable populations, including the poor and working class, are not left behind due to societal structures that prioritize the interests of the “laptop class.” Jay has weathered the storm of the past five years with grace and an unwavering commitment to truth. These experiences have made him a better person, and in turn, his leadership at the NIH will benefit us all. That said, it would be preferable if, as a society, we could create better ways to enhance personal growth and resilience--without subjecting people to so much harm.

---