logo
New friction surfaces over replicating research

New friction surfaces over replicating research

Axios24-03-2025

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."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

HHS justifies decision to stop recommending Covid shots during pregnancy with studies supporting the shots' safety
HHS justifies decision to stop recommending Covid shots during pregnancy with studies supporting the shots' safety

Politico

time38 minutes ago

  • Politico

HHS justifies decision to stop recommending Covid shots during pregnancy with studies supporting the shots' safety

The Department of Health and Human Services is circulating a document on Capitol Hill to explain its decision to remove the Covid-19 vaccine recommendation for pregnant women — citing studies that largely found the shot is safe. The document, which HHS sent to lawmakers days before Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his plan to fire the panel that advises the CDC on immunizations, says that studies have shown that women who got the vaccine during pregnancy had higher rates of various complications. And it claims that 'a number of studies in pregnant women showed higher rates of fetal loss if vaccination was received before 20 weeks of pregnancy,' footnoting a research paper on vaccination during pregnancy. But Dr. Maria P. Velez of McGill University, the lead author of one of the studies, told POLITICO in an email that 'the results of our manuscript were misinterpreted.' The 2023 study shows a slightly higher rate of miscarriages among women who were immunized against Covid-19 during their pregnancies. But, Velez said, that after adjusting for 'variables that can confound a crude association,' like 'age, rurality, neighbourhood income quintile, immigration status, comorbidity' and other factors that could affect the outcome, Canadian researchers found 'no association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and an increased risk of miscarriage.' Raw numbers don't account for significant differences among the groups being compared — such as underlying conditions and when during pregnancy the people were vaccinated, said Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist who's consulted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Scientists, including the Canadian researchers, use statistical methods to adjust for those factors, she said, which is how they determined the vaccine wasn't associated with miscarriage. In a statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon pointed to the raw study data, which showed a slightly higher rate of miscarriage in the first half of pregnancy for women who were vaccinated against Covid compared with those who weren't. 'The underlying data speaks for itself — and it raises legitimate safety concerns,' he said. 'HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay early pregnancy loss.' Nixon added that HHS and the CDC encourage people to talk to their providers 'about any personal medical decision.' Vaccine researchers and obstetricians criticized the decision to remove the recommendation for pregnant women, and researchers cited in the HHS document largely dismissed any connection between Covid vaccination and miscarriages. 'Given that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy is associated with serious maternal and neonatal morbidity, the current study can inform healthcare providers, pregnant women and those considering a pregnancy about the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in relation to miscarriage risk,' Velez and her co-authors wrote in the study. That research was based on health-system data from Ontario, Canada, and aligned with similar population studies in the U.S., Scotland and Norway. Similarly, HHS cited an April 2022 study in its document concerning mRNA vaccination in people undergoing in-vitro fertilization, which also found no adverse effects on conception rates or on early pregnancy outcomes. 'Administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was not associated with an adverse effect on stimulation or early pregnancy outcomes after IVF,' the New York City-based researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai West hospital wrote in the study. 'Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in women who are trying to conceive.' The HHS document also includes an incorrect link for that study, instead leading to a different study — also cited in HHS' document — by Israeli researchers that found the vaccine 'appears to be safe during pregnancy,' with no increase in preterm labor or in newborns with low birth weight. That February 2022 study did note a possible increase in preterm birth rates for women vaccinated during the second trimester, and the authors suggested future investigations of outcomes based on the timing of immunization. HHS' assertion about significant risks to pregnant women 'contradicts the bulk of published studies,' said Dr. Paul Offit, an expert who has served as an outside adviser on vaccines to the FDA and the CDC. HHS deviated from past practice when it changed the Covid vaccine guidance last month, announcing the decision without the endorsement of an existing outside panel of expert advisers. Dr. Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told POLITICO at the time that he was disappointed by HHS' decision, and pointed to data showing that newborns can benefit from maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection from Covid. 'In fact, growing evidence shows just how much vaccination during pregnancy protects the infant after birth, with the vast majority of hospitalized infants less than 6 months of age — those who are not yet eligible for vaccination — born to unvaccinated mothers,' Fleischman said.

Dr. Jay in the hot seat
Dr. Jay in the hot seat

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Dr. Jay in the hot seat

Presented by Driving the day WHAT TO DO WITH NIH'S UNSPENT FUNDS — President Donald Trump's cuts to ideologically disfavored research have left the National Institutes of Health with unspent funds. Director Jay Bhattacharya, under pressure from critics on Capitol Hill and in the research community, is pledging to change that. 'The biomedical research enterprise is being refocused and that's what will keep America at the forefront of global science, safety, and innovation,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement. The administration, Nixon confirmed, has targeted research Trump opposes on issues like transgender health care and health disparities among people of different races. Whether critics are satisfied in the end will depend not only on whether Bhattacharya follows through on his promise, but also on how he decides to spend the money. Thus far, neither he nor anyone in the Trump administration have laid out a detailed plan. By the numbers: A New York Times analysis found that the NIH had spent about $1.6 billion less between the time Trump took office Jan. 20 and the end of April compared to the same period the year before. Bhattacharya told advocates for research last month that he'd spend all of the agency's $48 billion budget for this year by the end of September. In the hot seat: Democrats will get a chance to ask Bhattacharya for more details when he testifies before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this morning. Thus far, they've focused more on the cuts than on where the money will go, reflecting their view that Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency wanted to slash government spending, not target that spending on different priorities. Trump's budget proposal, released last month, suggested as much with its call for a 40 percent reduction in the NIH's total budget. The NIH is putting $500 million into a universal vaccine, which will target multiple strains of a virus. It also recently solicited proposals for autism research, with $50 million on offer. Last month, when Bhattacharya's boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee, ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut pressed him: 'Are you planning to break the law by impounding congressionally appropriated funds?' Kennedy said no: 'If Congress appropriates me the money, I'm going to spend the money.' WELCOME TO TUESDAY PULSE. I'm Robert King, POLITICO's CMS reporter, filling in for Kelly today. It will be a busy week for health policy wonks as we wait for more news on whether the Senate makes changes to Medicaid in the 'big beautiful bill.' If you have any tips or news, don't hesitate to shoot me a message. Send tips, scoops and general thoughts to rking@ and khooper@ Follow along @rking_19 and @Kelhoops. AROUND THE AGENCIES RFK'S BOLDEST VACCINE STEP YET — HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made his most dramatic move yet to overhaul vaccine approvals, firing all 17 members of the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines. Kennedy said in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is rife with conflicts of interest and has acted as a rubber stamp for vaccines. This is the latest step for Kennedy, who has questioned the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, in changing how vaccines are approved and recommended by the federal government. He said in the op-ed that his goal is to restore faith in vaccines. It will now be up to Kennedy to pick new members to serve four-year terms on the panel, which votes on updates to CDC's vaccine schedule. The CDC director can override the recommendation but rarely does. His decision appears to contradict a promise he made to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to secure the senator's vote for confirmation. Kennedy had promised to maintain ACIP 'without changes,' according to a speech Cassidy made on the Senate floor announcing his support for the nomination. Cassidy responded to the firings, writing on X that 'now the fear is that ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' He added that he spoke with Kennedy and will continue to speak with him 'to ensure this is not the case.' Cassidy — who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — later told reporters that the assurance he got from Kennedy was on the ACIP process rather than who sits on the panel. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted for Kennedy and sits on HELP, was taken by surprise. 'I don't know who serves on those committees, but it seems to be excessive to ask for everybody's resignations,' she told reporters. Congress TRYING TO STOP MEDICAID CUTS — More than 700 nursing home and assisted living professionals are heading to Capitol Hill this week to push lawmakers to avoid cuts to Medicaid in Republicans' megabill. The nursing home trade group American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living will hold its annual congressional briefing this week. The fly-in day coincides with the last chance for advocates to push lawmakers for changes to the megabill. The group released a survey Monday of 363 nursing homes that found 79 percent were extremely concerned about Medicaid cuts. Another 55 percent would have to reduce their Medicaid patient population. One of the issues is a moratorium on provider taxes. A state can levy a tax on hospitals or other providers to pay for its share of Medicaid, which it jointly funds with the federal government. Under Medicaid, a state can get a higher payment from the federal government if it devotes more of its own resources. A state can use its provider tax revenue to get a higher federal payment and can replace the taxed amount from hospitals or nursing homes through a higher payment rate. The moratorium placed in the megabill, which passed the House last month, enables current provider taxes to continue but freezes any new rates. House Republicans have argued the taxes are a loophole that enable states to get more federal money, but the AHCA argued they are vital to keep nursing homes afloat. 'Restricting provider taxes is restricting resources to seniors and their caregivers,' said Clif Porter, president and CEO of the AHCA, in a statement. White House MCDONALDS, PEPSI HEAD TO WHITE HOUSE — The White House invited nearly 50 food industry and farm groups as well as major companies mentioned in a controversial report on how to Make America Health Again to meet with officials, POLITICO's Grace Yarrow reports. The list of invitees for the series of meetings includes lobbying heavyweights such as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and American Farm Bureau Federation. Other invitees include soda brands Coca-Cola and Pepsi, as well as fast food representatives McDonald's and Yum! Brands, which own Taco Bell, KFC and others. The meetings are expected to take place this week and next. A May report from the MAHA Commission bashed farm groups for pesticide use. HHS has also called for a ban on sodas in federal nutrition programs. 'We're all very interested to see how these meetings play out over the next week and if it is a meaningful gesture or not,' said one agriculture industry insider. 'Is this just an exercise in placating stakeholders?' WHAT WE'RE READING The Washington Post reports on why Texas is spending millions to research an illegal psychedelic to jumpstart clinical trials. POLITICO's Benjamin Guggenheim reports on how Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo is maneuvering behind closed doors to get his party's massive bill through the chamber. KFF Health News reports on when cannabis users age their health risks appear to grow.

Watch live: NIH director testifies in Senate amid deep cuts to research
Watch live: NIH director testifies in Senate amid deep cuts to research

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Watch live: NIH director testifies in Senate amid deep cuts to research

Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will testify Tuesday morning before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Bhattacharya has overseen deep cuts to health care research, as the NIH provides billions to the country's research universities, which are the driving force of American medical innovation. Hundreds of NIH employees on Monday released the 'Bethesda Declaration' expressing their concern over some $12 billion in cuts to research funding and the firing of 'essential' agency employees. Bhattacharya in a thread on X said the declaration had 'some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months.' Watch the hearing live on Tuesday starting at 10 a.m. EST.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store