NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back.
In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.'
The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located.
The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership.
'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote.
They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies.
'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote.
The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted.
'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.'
NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward.
Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X.
'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote.
Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.'
'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump supporters, this is what you're cheering as his deportation scheme unfolds
For the past several days, Los Angeles has been alive with protests over President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. These largely peaceful demonstrations are vital to democracy. They're also infuriating Trump and Republicans. They've upset the president so much, in fact, that he deployed the National Guard and 700 U.S. Marines to the city against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. On the campaign trail for reelection, Trump threatened the 'largest deportation operation in American history.' Whether he's actually achieving that doesn't really matter; the terror he's instilling in immigrant communities is unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. In the wake of these protests, it is important to remember why people are upset in the first place. Protesters are angry that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is indiscriminately targeting people, and these people, who are being arrested and deported, have no access to due process. They are angry, and they are allowed to voice their frustrations. While nearly half the country voted for this terrifying regime, half the country wanted anything but this. It's deeper than what's happening in Los Angeles. It's what this administration is doing all over the country. For those who still support Trump's plan, here is what you are supporting. What's particularly alarming about what's happening in Los Angeles is that it flies in the face of the Republican fight for states' rights. Apparently, it's fine when abortion is left to the states, but protests must be managed by the federal government. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem once called out former President Joe Biden for even thinking about federalizing the National Guard in Texas in 2024. Now, she's cheering on Trump's actions in California. The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Opinion: Trump is so busy wasting $134 million on LA invasion he forgot to lower prices I am glad people are protesting Trump's horrific immigration policies. I am glad folks are standing up for their neighbors, because whether you like it or not, undocumented people are contributing members of your community. But the truth is that if you're excited about the federal government invading California, then you stopped caring about states' rights. Since Trump was inaugurated for his second term, ICE has arrested more than 100,000 undocumented migrants. The vast majority of the people being detained in ICE facilities have no criminal convictions. People reporting for their immigration hearings – as they have been instructed to do by the U.S. government – have been arrested. So were people at a Los Angeles Home Depot looking for work. To Trump and the people within his administration, every undocumented immigrant is a criminal. It's not just undocumented immigrants who are being taken in. Take Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal U.S. resident who was wrongly deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador and only recently returned to the United States to face federal criminal charges. There are also student protesters, like Mahmoud Khalil, who have been detained by immigration officials because they dared to speak out against what's happening in Gaza. Republicans are now afraid of words. Opinion: After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment – only MAGA can protest These arrests have become too much for a select few Trump supporters who still have a conscience. Florida Sen. Ileana Garcia, one of the founders of 'Latinas for Trump,' recently called out the inhumane actions of Trump and White House adviser Stephen Miller. 'This is not what we voted for,' Garcia wrote. 'I have always supported Trump, @realDonaldTrump, through thick and thin. However, this is unacceptable and inhumane. I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings ‒ in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims ‒ all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I hate to break it to Garcia, but this is exactly what she and others voted for. This is what America's 'largest deportation operation' was always going to look like – it was never going to just be the 'worst of the worst.' But her latest reaction is a sign that supporting Trump now means something different. It now means supporting rounding up people following the legal process just to make yourself feel better with a fake sense of "securing the border." Under Trump, immigration officials have essentially done away with due process in the interest of meeting deportation goals. They've made it clear they want no part of following the law or the process for deporting people. That's too much work. They'd rather defy the courts, then play the victim when the courts rule against them. Opinion: Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? That's what happens when you arrest people on their way to immigration hearings. That's what happens when you deport people to jurisdictions outside of the United States. It is what happens when you circumvent the rules to achieve a goal, and it should terrify everyone. Regardless of what Trump and Republicans think, the right to due process for everyone is enshrined in the Constitution. If the president can take away the rights of a vulnerable group of people, who's to stop him from infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens in the future? Again, Republicans, you still want this? You want people to be stripped of their rights? You want a federal government imposing itself on states? You want people deported indiscriminately? Congratulations, then. You're doing it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump lied. ICE nabs law-abiding immigrants, not criminals | Opinion
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zelenskyy says he regrets that Oval Office blowup, but he's still pushing Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he regrets that his Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump in late February spun out of control, but explained that it was his impatience to reach "concrete decisions" during wartime that led to the blowup. 'We simply don't have that much time in our lives. I wanted concrete decisions,' Zelenskyy said on Wednesday in an interview in Odessa with the Axel Springer Global Reporters network, which includes POLITICO. 'We were unable to make certain decisions, extremely important decisions. I don't know whether America was ready to address these issues or not. I have to resolve this issue of war. You see, time is very precious. Not my personal time, but the time of my country.' Zelenskyy also said he liked his one-on-one meeting with Trump, held two months later on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral at The Vatican, much 'better' than his ill-fated visit to the White House. 'We were able to discuss much more than at the other meeting, which felt like it lasted a lifetime,' Zelenskyy said, describing Trump as 'friendly.' Ukraine's embattled president, whose assertiveness and persistent requests for additional aid also privately irked President Joe Biden and his top aides, has worked assiduously to improve his relationship with Trump since that fateful February encounter. And the two countries did eventually sign the economic agreement to jointly develop Ukraine's rare earth minerals once the war is over, a pact that was temporarily tabled when the White House visit went sideways. Yet he also suggested in the interview that even his war-torn country may be able to turn the war into a new phase. 'Relations between our countries are not entirely balanced, but that was in the past,' Zelenskyy said. 'And today we must do everything we can to ensure that the next meeting in the Oval Office is successful for both countries. The lives of many people depend on it. And peace depends on it. Many countries in Europe depend on whether there will be security and peace in Ukraine. The security and stability of many countries in Europe depend on it.' After months of trying to browbeat Ukraine into negotiating a peace deal that would have required them to permanently cede occupied territory to Russia, Trump is showing a new willingness to allow the war to continue. That's seemingly a response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's refusal to seriously engage in peace talks. With Trump possibly rethinking his approach, Zelenskyy pushed the White House to maintain a sense of urgency and increase its pressure on Moscow. 'It's important to impose sanctions. We shouldn't... play by Putin's rules. It is important to impose sanctions and force Putin to agree to a ceasefire so that we can talk about ending the war,' Zelenskyy said. He will have a chance to make another direct appeal to Trump next week when he is scheduled to attend the G-7 leader's summit in the Canadian Rockies. Trump, during a meeting last week with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, expressed hesitation about giving the Senate a green light to advance widely supported legislation to impose additional sanctions on Russia. Describing the proposal in its original form as 'very harsh' on Russia, the president has been privately skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions and, for months, has believed taking a harder stance toward Putin would backfire. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. But with the Russian leader unwilling to make any substantive concessions toward a ceasefire while stepping up his bombings of Ukrainian cities, Trump appears to be shifting course away from his push for peace and tempering his hopes for a fast rapprochement with Putin. In Wednesday's interview, Zelenskyy said Trump remains the key figure who can bring the war to an end and urged the president to allow the sanctions bill to move forward. 'The strength of the sanctions, how strong the sanctions package will be, depends on him,' Zelenskyy said. 'The speed with which decisions are made depends on him; we don't see any resistance from the senators, for example. On the contrary, the majority is in favor.' Trump, during the meeting with Merz, said the timeline for when he'll have to toughen up with Putin is 'in my head' — a statement that Zelenskyy said gave him hope that the stronger pressure he's asking for from the U.S. will eventually come. 'I very much hope that President Trump will stick to it,' Zelenskyy said. 'It's not even about the fact that he promised during the election campaign that he would end the war. That's not the point. It's more that he is a certain person — and let's also consider his age — and I think it's important for him, I hope it's important for him to end the war. He has spoken about it very often, he has repeated many times that he will end the killing.' Zelenskyy also spoke about Operation Spider Web, the clandestine and ultimately successful endeavor to sneak drones into Russia that earlier this month succeeded in taking out roughly a third of Putin's long-range bomber fleet. Trump, whose aides said he did not get a heads up about the attack, expressed only mild frustration over the attack and stated that Putin, in a call last week, told him that he planned to retaliate soon. The attack, Zelenskyy said, ushered the war into 'a new phase,' suggesting that Kyiv is also capable of escalation if the fledgling peace talks run aground. 'I think that both in the U.S. and everywhere else, we must do everything we can to end this war so that we do not have further phases in this war.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Catastrophic': Rural public media stations brace for GOP cuts
Public media stations around the country are anxiously awaiting the results of Thursday's House vote that could claw back $1.1 billion from public broadcasting, with leaders warning that the cuts present an existential crisis for public media's future. For smaller stations — many of which are in rural parts of the country — the funding makes up critical chunks of their yearly operating budgets. Many of them are being forced to plan how they'll survive the cuts, if they can at all, public media executives say. Local leaders say the cuts would not only deprive their audiences of news and educational programming, but could also lead to a breakdown of the emergency broadcast message infrastructure that is critical for communities with less reliable internet or cellular service. 'That would mean an almost immediate disappearance of almost half our operating budget,' David Gordon, executive director of KEET in Eureka, California, said of the rescission proposal. 'Assuming [KEET] would continue, it would be in a very, very different form than it is right now.' The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that distributes federal money to public media stations via grants, said about 45 percent of public radio and TV stations it provided grants to in 2023 are in rural areas. Nearly half of those rural stations relied on CPB funding for 25 percent or more of their revenue. But that funding is being targeted for a vote as part of a push from President Donald Trump that also aims to cut $8.3 billion in foreign aid. The rescissions package would cut CPB funding already approved by Congress for the next two fiscal years. The proposal, which only needs approval from a simple majority, must pass both chambers of Congress within 45 legislative days from the day it's introduced. The House is set to vote on Thursday. If the House and Senate follow their current schedules, the deadline to vote on the cuts is July 18. If the deadline passes and Congress has not approved the cuts, the White House will be required to spend the money — but funding could still be cut in future budgets. If approved, the package would codify a series of cuts first picked out by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Both Trump and Elon Musk, former head of DOGE, have repeatedly accused NPR and PBS of bias against Republicans. In 2023, the Musk-owned social media site X labeled NPR as "state-affiliated media," falsely suggesting the organization produces propaganda. Trump regularly suggested cutting federal funding for public media during his first term. But his second term has brought increased hostility to mainstream media outlets, including the Associated Press, Voice of America, ABC News and CBS News. Approximately 19 percent of NPR member stations count on CPB funding for at least 30 percent of their revenue — a level at which stations would be unlikely to make up if Congress approves the rescissions, according to an NPR spokesperson. Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, predicts over a third of public media stations in Alaska alone would be forced to shut down 'within three to six months' if their federal funding disappears. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in an interview she expects 'a couple dozen stations' to have 'significant' funding problems 'in the very near term' without federal funding. And she believes more could be in long-term jeopardy even if they survive the immediate aftermath of the cuts. 'A number of [stations] are hesitant to say it publicly,' she said. 'I know that some of our stations are very, very worried about the fact that they might be able to keep it pieced together for a short period of time. But for them, it will be existential.' Smaller stations with high dependency on federal funding may be forced into hard choices about where to make cuts. Some stations are considering cutting some of what little full-time staff they have, or canceling some of the NPR and PBS programming they pay to air. Phil Meyer, CEO of Southern Oregon PBS in Medford, Oregon, said his station will have to get creative just to stay afloat. 'If we eliminated all our staff, it still wouldn't save us enough money,' Meyer said. 'It becomes an existential scenario planning exercise where, if that funding does go away, we would have to look at a different way of doing business.' Some rural stations are worried they won't be able to cover the costs to maintain the satellite and broadcast infrastructure used to relay emergency broadcast messages without the federal grants. In remote areas without reliable broadband or internet coverage, public media stations can be the only way for residents to get natural disaster warnings or hear information about evacuation routes. After Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina last year, leaving the region without electricity for days, Blue Ridge Public Radio in Asheville, North Carolina, provided vital information on road closure and access to drinking water for people using battery-powered and hand-cranked radios. 'I think it's pretty catastrophic,' Sherece Lamke, president and general manager of Pioneer PBS in Granite Falls, Minnesota, said of the potential consequences of losing the 30 percent of her station's budget supplied by CPB. Station managers around the country have made direct pleas to their home congressional delegations in the past year, urging them to protect public broadcasting from the rescission proposal and publicly opposing Trump's executive order calling on CPB to stop providing funding to stations. PBS, NPR and some local stations have sued the Trump administration to block the order. Brian Duggan, general manager of KUNR Public Radio in Reno, Nevada, said he's optimistic about the chances of the House voting down the funding cuts, particularly after talking with his local member of Congress, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who co-signed a statement opposing cuts to public media on Monday. 'I maintain optimism … based on my conversations with the congressman,' Duggan said. 'I will just hold out hope to see what happens ultimately on the House floor.' Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, whose public media stations are among the most dependent on federal grants in the country, told POLITICO on Wednesday she's concerned about stations in her state and is trying to get the package changed. In the wake of Trump administration pressure, some stations have seen an uptick in grassroots donations. But while larger stations in well-populated metro areas have broader, wealthier donor bases to draw on for additional support, many rural stations can only expect so much help from their community. Some of the stations in rural areas are forced to navigate the added complication of asking for donations from Republican voters as Trump rails against the public media ecosystem. 'We live in a very purple district up here,' Sarah Bignall, CEO and general manager of KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota said. 'If we started kind of doing the push and the fundraising efforts that were done in the Twin Cities, it would be very off-putting to a lot of our listeners.' Increases in donations, sponsors and state funding — only some states fund public broadcasting, and other states are pushing their own cuts to public broadcasting — would be unlikely to cover the full loss of smaller stations with heavy dependence on federal grants. 'It's not like we can just go, you know, 'Let's find a million dollars somewhere else.'' Lamke said. 'If we knew how to do that, we would have.' Longtime public media employees have experience in managing the lack of certainty that comes with the nonprofit funding model. But some said that the federal cuts, along with the White House effort to eliminate the public media model, have made forecasting the future of their stations more difficult than ever. 'I think this is the biggest risk that we've had, certainly in the time that I've been in public broadcasting,' Kruger said. 'And I've been in this business 30 years.' Calen Razor contributed to this report.
