▲ 127 r/NIH
Inside the 'diploma mill' where the NIH's newest advisory council member got her degrees. Kristine Blanche, a licensed physician assistant and wife of acting attorney general Todd Blanche, holds degrees from a school a prosecutor and longtime researchers have called a 'diploma mill'
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 219 r/NIH
Rolling Stone exposes Podcast Jay's hypocrisy. 13 Americans w/o Ebola exposure put in detention when returning from Africa --- “Staff even created a map for Bhattacharya that showed the vast distance from Kinshasa to Ituri province, to highlight the low risk. He ordered them to be detained anyway."
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 63 r/NIH
Daily Signal: "Though the NIH is not political, (Podcast Jay) Bhattacharya said he shoulders many political attacks against his leadership" --- no, the attacks are not political. They relate to your gutting of people and programs, and your utter lack of qualifications for the role you were gifted.
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 34 r/NIH
Jayanta "Podcast Jay" Bhattacharya (health economist and armchair philosopher) suggests to the hard-right "Daily Signal" that advances achieved with fetal tissue research "would be broadly unacceptable to most of the population." I think he's off base. Perhaps his handlers can weigh in.
As far as I know there is no credible national poll that clearly establishes the percentage of Americans who support or oppose fetal tissue research itself. Most experts who write about the issue describe public opinion as mixed and highly dependent on question wording—especially whether the question emphasizes:
- potential medical benefits (vaccines, treatments, disease research), or
- the tissue's origin from elective abortions.
Jayanta B: “Imagine I do some amazing study, but I violate horrible ethical norms so that most of the population, most people, believe that I’ve done something terrible,” he said. “The fruits of that terrible thing would be broadly unacceptable to most of the population."
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 34 r/NIH
Disruption of HIV research at NIH: Fact Check, Part 7. Bhattacharya tries to take credit for HIV advances while his policies undermine the field “I mean, just, I think that the idea of getting rid of HIV in this country, that President Trump actually articulated in 2019.”
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
Podcast Jay Bhattacharya, Who Claimed He “Would Have” Perfectly Controlled COVID, Is Letting Thousands of Americans Get Explosive Diarrhea Now That He Has Power
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 298 r/NIH
Last month, I watched in dismay as NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya stood before 1,000 Alzheimer’s disease and dementia advocates and promised to pursue exactly the kind of science his agency has spent the past year slowing, shrinking, and subjecting to political review.
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 0 r/NIH
Yes, Podcast Jay Bhattacharya knows more than podcasting. No discussion of "the Biden Administration" which makes this classic textbook all the better
Comprehensive in coverage this textbook, written by academics from leading institutions, discusses current developments and debates in modern health economics from an international perspective. Economic models are presented in detail, complemented by real-life explanations and analysis, and discussions of the influence of such theories on policymaking. Offering sound pedagogy and economic rigor, Health Economics focuses on building intuition alongside appropriate mathematical formality, translating technical language into accessible economic narrative. Rather than shying away from intellectual building blocks, students are introduced to technical and theoretical foundations and encouraged to apply these to inform empirical studies and wider policymaking.
This book is designed for advanced undergraduate courses in health economics and policy but may also interest postgraduate students in economics, medicine and health policy. Ideal length for one-semester courses.
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 3 r/NIH
Webinar on NIH's Unified Funding Strategy -- August 14, 2026. Memoli, Lorsch and others
https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/239b35f0-7181-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769
Dr. Matthew Memoli, NIH Principal Deputy Director Dr. Jon Lorsch, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Ray Jacobson, Director, NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Dr. Bruce Tromberg, Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Dr. Nora Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Dr. Karl Malik, Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH
August 14, 2026
9:55 AM - 11:00 AM EST (1 hours,5 minutes)
Public Webinar: Friday August 14, 10:00-11:00 https://videocast.nih.gov/watch/239b35f0-7181-11f1-82c0-124f0a52e769 This webinar aims to Increase awareness and understanding of NIH’s Unified Funding Strategy, which is designed to support NIH Institutes and Centers to make informed, transparent, and flexible funding decisions. Targeted for members of the NIH extramural research community, NIH leadership will clarify the approach’s rationale, goals, and implementation across NIH. The discussion will also address misconceptions and help foster communication between NIH staff and applicants, recipients, researchers, and the wider research community. In August 2025, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya announced NIH’s unified funding strategy. This effort empowers Institute, Center, and Office Directors to make funding decisions that consider peer review assessments of scientific merit, Institute/Center priorities, scientific opportunity, program balance, geographic balance, and workforce needs, which will be consistently applied across the agency. Moreover, it reinforces how central NIH peer review is for assessing scientific and technical merit of proposed research ideas. The Unified Funding strategy builds on these principles, allowing NIH to consider the full range of reviewer feedback, including scientific strengths, concerns, differing expert opinions, and indicators of innovation or high-risk/high-reward research. Panelists will include: • Matthew Memoli, M.D., NIH Principal Deputy Director • Jon Lorsch, Ph.D., NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research • Ray Jacobson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Scientific Review, NIH • Bruce Tromberg, Ph.D., Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, NIH • Nora Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH • Karl Malik, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIH We appreciate members of the research community registering for the webinar here as well: Link TBD
u/42Emily — 3 months ago
▲ 54 r/NIH
Senator Collins letter to OMB
“Dear Director Vought:
“I write to request that you extend the comment period for the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, and that you meaningfully address stakeholder feedback on the rule and the impacts it is likely to have on small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.
“The proposed rule would make extensive changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (‘Uniform Guidance’), the government-wide framework for administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. OMB states that the intent of these changes is to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” for these awards. While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients that would harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.
“The proposed rule would allow Federal agencies to terminate any discretionary grant, cooperative agreement, or other federal assistance at any time, if an agency ‘determines that a termination is in the interest of the Federal agency…, including if a Federal award does not effectuate program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest.’ Prior iterations of the Uniform Guidance included provisions allowing for termination of awards that are not consistent with ‘program goals or agency priorities’ but afforded agencies discretion to consider whether to include this term in their financial assistance agreements. The proposed rule would take away this discretion. In addition, if awards are terminated under this new provision, the termination would not be subject to the administrative hearing requirements for compliance-based terminations, thereby limiting an entity’s ability to appeal the decision.
“Authorizing mid-award termination of Federal awards, with limited ability to appeal, would inject uncertainty into the Federal award process, especially for awards that span multiple years and phases and make these awards more costly. For example, the termination of clinical trials would leave patients without treatment and could well result in significant scientific and financial losses to both the recipient and the Federal government. This uncertainty could disincentivize scientific researchers and institutions from seeking the Federal financial assistance they need to participate in multi-year, lifesaving trials.
“The proposed rule would also require that following the merit-review process for any federal assistance awards, senior appointees must perform a pre-issuance review that, in part, requires them to consider whether the award “demonstrably advance[s] the President’s policy priorities.” Additionally, when conducting this review, the proposed rule requires senior appointees “to use their independent judgment when evaluating Federal award proposals.” Adding this additional review for awards that have already been selected through a scientific, merit-based peer review process would undermine the objective that the Federal government fund scientific and biomedical research projects based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.
“The proposed rule would add additional burdens on recipients and sub-recipients of federal financial assistance awards, even though OMB states that an objective of the proposed rule is “to reduce recipient burden.” For example, the proposed rule would require recipients and sub-recipients of Federal financial assistance awards to submit a written justification for every payment request, whether the payment is made in advance or as a reimbursement. Imposing this requirement would create significant administrative burdens on small institutions and small communities that may need to hire additional staff to ensure they receive funds on a timely basis.
“Finally, OMB states that one of the purposes of the proposed rule is to ensure that, where applicable, “activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with … policy.” The proposed rule also would impose new requirements on agencies to consider the President’s policy priorities, when administering grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. The proposed rule, however, fails to address how OMB and agencies would ensure that consideration of the President’s policy priorities does not supersede congressional intent for the administration of these awards.
“The proposed revisions are the most significant changes proposed to the Guidance since it was adopted. Yet, OMB has provided stakeholders only 45 days to comment on the rule, with a stated intent to finalize the rule by October 1, 2026, to align with the upcoming fiscal year. I have heard from numerous stakeholders that the current comment period is inadequate, and therefore, I request that OMB extend the comment period for the rule by no less than 90 days and withdraw portions of the rule that would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.
“Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Collins
Chair”
###
u/42Emily — 3 months ago