RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research
On its own, this scenario is not as alarming as some may say. Private companies spend more on medical research per year than the federal government. But this week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took a shot at private funders as well—raising the question: Who does the administration think should fund medical research?
"NIH has $46 billion that it allocates to science every year," Kennedy said on an episode of the podcast The Ultimate Human. "Unfortunately, that system has been corrupted through a number of different vectors, so the people who get the money tend to be people who have been approved by the industry."
Kennedy called the current system "an old boys' network," where private actors fund studies primarily dedicated to preserving pharmaceutical companies' profits. "The private funding is coming from industries," he added, who "write the outcome before they write the study, in many cases."
While Kennedy briefly allowed that "that also happens in the public sphere," he placed the majority of the blame squarely on the private sector, and he targeted medical journals for punishment.
"We're probably going to stop publishing in The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals because they're all corrupt," he charged. "Unless these journals change dramatically, we are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing there, and we're going to create our own journals in-house."
Ironically, The Lancet's biggest and most infamous scandal involved a 1998 study determining a link between the MMR vaccine—routinely given to inoculate children against measles, mumps, and rubella—and autism spectrum disorders. The Lancet later retracted the study and its author was stripped of his license to practice medicine.
"The claim that vaccines cause autism has been comprehensively debunked," wrote Ronald Bailey for Reason. Nevertheless, Kennedy apparently still believes it, saying as recently as July 2023, "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines."
In April, Kennedy appointed David Geier, a vaccine "skeptic," to head a government study on the potential links between vaccines and autism. Steven Black, head of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, told The New York Times in 2005 that Geier and his father, a physician who has since been stripped of his medical license, practiced "voodoo science," adding, "The problem with the Geiers' research is that they start with the answers and work backwards"—exactly what Kennedy now accuses pharmaceutical companies of doing.
Of course, medical journals are not perfect. "Medical journals often contain poor science," according to a 2006 article from The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. "The journals have, for example, published many reports of treatments applied to single cases and to series of cases, which rarely allow confident conclusions because of the absence of controls."
But it's foolish for Kennedy to suggest the corrupting element is business, and that doing everything from within the federal government would fix the incentive structure.
"If government funds research, it must decide which projects to fund, allowing political forces to influence the choice," Jeffrey Miron and Jacob P. Winter wrote at the Cato Institute in 2023. "President George W. Bush limited federal funding for stem cell research that used human embryos in response to pressure from anti-abortion forces. The recent affirmative action case against Harvard is a legal issue because Harvard accepts federal research funding. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has been criticized for displaying bias in favor of drug prohibition."
Miron and Winter argued that privately funded research not only saves the taxpayers money but actually goes further than government grants: "Between 2010 and 2019, 200 organizations received 80 percent of National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) grants, whereas the top 200 recipients of private funding received only 33 percent of donations. Scientists have explained how private funding has enabled them to explore new ideas, adjust budgets, and avoid lengthy bureaucratic approval processes."
NSF found in 2022 that over the previous two decades, federal money fell from 60 percent to 40 percent as a share of total research spending, meanwhile "the share funded by business has increased." In 2022, while 40 percent of research was funded by government, 37 percent was funded by business.
In 2018, two of every three dollars spent on medical research and development came from private businesses, three times what was spent by federal agencies.
The Trump administration has made NIH grants a target for potential cuts. Despite breathless reporting of the potential consequences, private sources account for a similar portion of total research and development dollars, and a much larger portion of medical funding in particular.
But for Kennedy to attack privately funded research while the administration he works for cuts publicly funded research, it's worth asking where they expect the money to come from.
The post RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research appeared first on Reason.com.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
11 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Mark Cuban says the US has got to keep investing in research if it wants to have a chance of beating China at AI
"Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban says the US can beat China at AI if it continues "investing in research of all kinds as a country." "The IP we create domestically is what the frontier models can buy or invest in to define their differentiation and advance forward," Cuban wrote on X in response to a post by David Sacks, the White House's AI and crypto czar, on the state of the AI race. When asked about his X post, Cuban told Business Insider that American research is "important, not just because of the outcome of the research itself, but its value to American frontier AI models" like ChatGPT and Gemini. Cuban said that any unique intellectual property produced can be "licensed to the models, for a fee, to be included in their training." This would not only offset research costs but also make the models more valuable, he added. "The quality and depth of the research we do in this country can help us stay ahead of China and other countries in the AI race," Cuban told Business Insider. "We need our Ph.D.s, our scientists, our experts, to stay here and contribute to society, and their IP to make American AI models the global leaders," he added. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump's administration has been culling research grants for universities and research institutions like the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . Researchers and scientists told Business Insider's Ayelet Sheffey in April that the cuts could stifle innovation and result in brain drain. "It absolutely endangers the United States' position as the global leader in medical research. And for that, we will pay," Peter Lurie, a recipient of an NIH grant terminated in March, told Sheffey. Staying ahead in the AI race has been a primary focus for the Trump administration, which unveiled its " AI Action Plan" last month. The 28-page plan calls for a light-touch approach to AI regulation compared to Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden. In January, Chinese AI startup DeepSeek shocked the world with its high-performing but relatively cheap AI models. Trump said he viewed DeepSeek's accomplishment "as a positive, as an asset" for America. "The release of DeepSeek, AI from a Chinese company, should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing to win," Trump told GOP lawmakers in January.


Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Nvidia China Chip Payments, Tax Hike Hurts Jobs, Private Credit's Losers
Your morning briefing, the business news you need in just 15 minutes. On today's podcast: (1) Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices agreed to pay 15% of their revenues from Chinese AI chip sales to the US government in a deal to secure export licenses, an unusual arrangement that may unnerve both US companies and Beijing. (2) European nations are seeking to talk to Donald Trump ahead of the US president's planned meeting in Alaska with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. (3) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended his plan for a military sweep against the final Hamas strongholds in Gaza, calling it the best available option for recovering hostages while safeguarding his country's long-term security — an argument that's met vocal opposition at home and abroad. (4) It was a 'trailblazing' project - and for the two small pension funds that helped finance it, a chance to prop up the retirement savings of dentists and pharmacists in rural northern Germany. We look at Germany's biggest property crash since the financial crisis. (5) The UK jobs market weakened across the board in July as employers cut their payroll budgets in response to Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' £26 billion ($34.9 billion) tax increase, according to a survey closely monitored by the Bank of England. (6) European Central Bank officials will wait until December to deliver their next interest-rate cut in what is likely to be the final move in the cycle, a Bloomberg survey showed.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The legal battle over Trump's use of the National Guard moves to a California courtroom
Lawyers for President Donald Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are set to face off Monday to determine whether the president violated a 147-year-old law when he deployed the National Guard to quell protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles – against the wishes of the Democratic governor. In June, as hundreds of people gathered in Los Angeles to protest a string of immigration raids that targeted workplaces and left dozens of people detained or deported, the president federalized and deployed 4,000 National Guard members over the objection of Newsom and local officials, who said the deployment would only cause further chaos. Trump invoked a rarely used law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard during times of actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, or when regular forces can't enforce US laws. The president's lawyers said in a court filing that the duties of the National Guard troops and a handful of Marines also dispatched were narrowly circumscribed: They were dispatched only to protect federal property and personnel, and they didn't engage in any law enforcement activities. Newsom filed a lawsuit June 9 against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying they violated the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment. Trump's lawyers say the act, which prevents the use of the military for enforcing laws, doesn't provide a mechanism for a civil lawsuit. But Newsom's lawyers have argued the president illegally made an 'unprecedented power grab' – and even violated the Constitution – by overruling local authorities to send in the military. The president and Hegseth 'have overstepped the bounds of law and are intent on going as far as they can to use the military in unprecedented, unlawful ways,' Newsom's lawyers say in a complaint. The trial represents a crucial moment for determining how much power a US president can lawfully exercise over the military on domestic soil. During his first term, Trump had often speculated openly about the possibility of deploying the military on American soil, whether to suppress protests or combat crime. Now he's talking about deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital over recent high-profile crimes. The trial also represents an escalation of the feud between Trump and Newsom, which saw the president threaten to have the Democratic governor arrested during the Los Angeles protests. Newsom described the comment as 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' The judge set to preside over the bench trial, Charles R. Breyer, previously granted a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, ruling that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard and that the protests didn't amount to an insurrection. But just hours later, an appeals court paused his ruling, allowing the deployment to continue. Here's more on what to know about the upcoming trial – and the three laws Newsom's team says Trump and Hegseth violated. The trial is taking place in San Francisco, presided over by Breyer, who sits on the US District Court for the Northern District of California, with proceedings scheduled from Monday to Wednesday. The Posse Comitatus Act At the center of the legal proceedings is the Posse Comitatus Act, which largely prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, an independent law and policy organization. 'Posse Comitatus' is a Latin term used in American and British law to describe 'a group of people who are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county,' according to the Brennan Center. The act, signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878, consists of just one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' Newsom's lawyers say the deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was a violation of the act since it bars 'the military from engaging in civil law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by law,' according to the complaint. But Trump's lawyers insist the National Guard and Marines didn't engage in any civil law enforcement – and therefore didn't violate the act. Moreover, they say the act itself doesn't provide any mechanisms for its enforcement in a private civil lawsuit. The 10th Amendment Newsom's lawyers also argue that by overriding California officials, Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which governs the sharing of power between the federal government and the 50 states. The amendment says 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Trump and Hegseth's move to call up the National Guard against the governor's wishes 'infringes on Governor Newsom's role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State's sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power,' Newsom's complaint says. Policing and crime control are some of the most crucial uses of state power, Newsom's lawyers say. The Administrative Procedure Act Additionally, Newsom's lawyers argue Trump and Hegseth violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which says a court must 'hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,' that is 'contrary to constitutional right (or) power,' or that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.' Hegseth and the Department of Defense 'lack authority to federalize members of the California National Guard without issuing such orders through Governor Newsom, who has not consented to their actions or been afforded the opportunity to consult on any deployment. Such agency actions are unauthorized, unprecedented, and not entitled to deference by this Court,' reads the complaint. The obscure law Trump's lawyers cite Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, have focused in their filing on a little-used law they cited to federalize the National Guard. Section 12406(3) of the US Code says the president can federalize the National Guard of any state in three circumstances: if the US is being invaded or faces danger of invasion; if there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion; or if the president is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' The law, however, stipulates the orders should be issued 'through the governors.' Newsom's lawyers say Trump didn't consult with the governor before issuing the order. Breyer previously pointed out Trump's memo directed Hegseth to consult the governor before federalizing the National Guard – but that he didn't. The Los Angeles deployment was only the second time in US history that a president has used the 'exclusive authority' of this law to federalize the National Guard, according to Newsom's lawyers. The first was when President Richard Nixon called on the National Guard to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service strike. And it's the second time since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators, that a president activated a state's national guard without a request from the governor – though he used a different law to do so. Trump's lawyers say the president was unable to enforce federal immigration law 'as well as laws forbidding interference with federal functions or assaults on federal officers and property' with 'the regular forces' – so the deployment falls within the limits of Section 12406(3). What do Newsom's lawyers want? With only 300 National Guard troops still deployed in Los Angeles, Newsom's lawyers are looking mostly for symbolic relief: a declaration the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. The remaining troops are stationed at Joint Forces Training Base – Los Alamitos, Newsom says, 'without a clear mission, direction, or a timeline for returning to their communities.' Newsom's team is also asking for 'injunctive relief' prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor. Finally, they ask to recoup the state of California's costs and attorneys' fees and 'such additional relief as the court deems proper and the interests of justice may require.' What witnesses will appear? Trump's lawyers indicated in a court filing they plan to call as a witness Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard. Sherman is expected to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers also plan to call Sherman, as well as US Army official William B. Harrington to testify about the activities of Task Force 51, the command post activated to coordinate deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles. Ernesto Santacruz Jr. of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is also expected to testify about the federalized National Guard's activities in support of federal law enforcement officials during immigration enforcement operations.