
New friction surfaces over replicating research
The Trump administration wants to spend more federal dollars replicating medical research. A key question will be which studies get repeated and, with limited resources, at what expense.
Why it matters: Many findings can't be replicated — a problem scientists say needs to be addressed. But it could also consume increasingly scarce resources as the administration cuts spending and freezes federal grants.
And some warn repeating accepted studies into how diseases originate or drugs work could undermine science for political gain.
"We should ask questions, ensure reproducibility, and grow our evidence base with replication," David Higgins, a practicing pediatrician and health services researcher at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, said in an email.
But that "requires considering many factors," he adds.
Catch up quick: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and National Institutes of Health director nominee Jay Bhattacharya say they want to make replication a pillar of what the institutes do, pointing to fraud in the research community.
"The gold standard means real scientific research with replication of studies, which very rarely happens now at NIH," Kennedy said during a Senate confirmation hearing in January.
"We should be giving at least 20% of the NIH budgets to replication," he added, citing a landmark paper on Alzheimer's disease that was later found to contain doctored images, calling many subsequent studies into question.
In one early sign of the administration's priorities, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention is reportedly planning a broad study into connections between vaccines and autism, despite substantial evidence disproving any link.
NIH last year launched a program that invited researchers to nominate their own studies for replication — and promised up to $50,000 plus overhead costs to contract with an outside organization to repeat the work, according to Science. Interest was "modest," the outlet reported.
What they're saying: "CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening" with the increase in autism cases in the U.S., HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Axios in an email. "The American people expect high quality research and transparency and that is what CDC will deliver."
The big picture: Replication is "expensive, time-consuming and draws resources from other work but if you're interested in improving science, the scientific record and knowledge, it needs to be applied equally and universally," says Ivan Oransky, who teaches journalism at New York University and is a co-founder of Retraction Watch, which tracks withdrawals of scientific papers,
"In a world of endless resources, you should replicate every study," Oransky says.
But resources are limited and the cost of doing science has "vastly outpaced inflation," he says.
The White House already is trying to cut billions of dollars in NIH grants for research overhead at universities and medical research centers. The Trump administration has said those savings could be reallocated directly to research. But scientists and university administrators say those indirect costs are crucial for the infrastructure that enables research.
Zoom in: Reports that the CDC will conduct a new large-scale study to look into already unsupported claims of a link between autism and vaccines are raising concern about political influence. Kennedy has for years repeated the debunked theory.
"We have already done that many times over. It wastes valuable resources to revisit the same question instead of using them to address critical health challenges," Higgins said.
"More than 20 major studies involving over 10 million children across multiple countries, populations, and decades have found that there is no link between vaccines and autism," according to a new review of studies by Higgins and others.
Bhattacharya said during his Senate confirmation hearing that he doesn't "generally believe that there is a link" and doesn't want "to disprove a negative" but added that another study might help to convince people who are vaccine hesitant.
But Higgins says "reexamining settled questions that have already been repeated, replicated, and tested many times is not healthy skepticism; it's cynicism and science denial."
Research, like other investments, can be set on a spectrum of risk, says Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science, a nonprofit that supports replication studies, and a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
On the low-risk end is replicating studies as closely as one can to verify and validate their results. Nosek says "an investment on the order of single digits of the percent of the budget" at NIH could be helpful.
In the middle is more incremental science that comprises the bulk of research — and that has drawn the ire of politicians who characterize it as wasteful. "Incrementalism is used pejoratively and I think that is insanity for how science actually makes progress," Nosek says.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is high-risk — and potentially high-reward — research that "is open-ended and sometimes looks frivolous and impossible" but in some cases may be ultimately groundbreaking, says Stuart Buck, executive director of the Good Science Project.
Between the lines: The deeper issue underlying debates about replication and where science funding should be directed is that scientists have an incentive to build on existing studies, because it's likelier to allow them to publish often, attract more funding and advance their careers.
"Big bureaucracies in science tend to fund consensus opinion ... and to not be interested in replication and bias against groundbreaking ideas," Buck says.
Bhattacharya has said "a tentativeness to focus on the big ideas" and replicability are among the problems at NIH he'll address if confirmed, and that "no matter what the budget is, I want to reform it in that direction."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China is only 3-6 months behind US in AI, Trump official says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -China is three to six months behind the United States in artificial intelligence, White house AI and crypto czar David Sacks said Tuesday at an event in Washington, warning that excess U.S. AI regulation could damage American innovation in the industry. "China is not years and years behind us in AI. Maybe they're 3-6 months,' said Sacks, speaking at the AWS summit in Washington. "It's a very close race."


New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
What Makes a Food Ultraprocessed? The FDA Is About to Weigh In.
The federal government plans to develop a new definition of ultraprocessed foods, a wide-ranging group of snacks, meals and drinks that have become a cornerstone of the American diet. Nutrition researchers generally define ultraprocessed foods as industrially manufactured products that include ingredients you wouldn't find in your own kitchen, like high-fructose corn syrup or hydrogenated oils. The products also often contain artificial flavors, sweeteners and emulsifiers that make them appealing to consumers and can give them a longer shelf life. In crafting its own definition, the government could examine the chemicals and additives put in foods, the number of ingredients in a product or its overall nutritional content. That description could then be used to shape school lunch policy, regulate the foods available through federal services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or make recommendations about limiting ultraprocessed food consumption in the U.S. dietary guidelines. The Food and Drug Administration, which is leading the effort in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agencies, plans to seek public comment before setting a definition in the coming months. Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner of the F. D.A., said he expected the definition would encourage companies to label foods as 'non-ultraprocessed' to entice customers, similar to how food manufacturers market their products as being free from added sugars. 'We do not see ultraprocessed foods as foods to be banned,' he said. 'We see them as foods to be defined so that markets can compete based on health.' The idea that consumers may go out of their way to avoid these items reflects growing concerns about the potential harms of ultraprocessed foods, which include many breakfast cereals, instant noodles, protein bars, meal-replacement shakes, flavored yogurts, hot dogs and more. Scientists have increasingly linked ultraprocessed foods to poor health outcomes, such as Type 2 diabetes, heart issues, some types of cancers and gastrointestinal issues. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Time Magazine
18 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.