
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


Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politico
RFK Jr. guts ACIP. What happens next?
Presented by Driving the day ACIP FIRINGS ROCK WASHINGTON — HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. abruptly removed 17 vaccine experts from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Monday — and Washington is already reeling. 'The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,' Kennedy wrote in an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal. He wrote that the decision is meant to restore faith in vaccines. Public health experts and Democrats immediately condemned the action — which POLITICO reported was under consideration in February. 'This is absolutely unprecedented. RFK Jr. has many levers at his disposal to influence vaccine policy in the U.S., each with varying degrees of impact. But this move is a red-alert, level 4 alarm,' said Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist who's consulted for the CDC. The biopharmaceutical industry also raised concerns. 'A wholesale change of this manner will negatively affect the Committee's ability to deliberate and make well-informed recommendations, putting American lives at risk,' Biotechnology Innovation Organization CEO John Crowley said in a statement. 'We agree that transparency is key to restoring trust in immunizations; however, the actions taken today upend a time-tested system that has protected American public health.' The removal of the experts also appears to buck the commitment Kennedy made to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) to 'maintain' the committee 'without changes.' But Cassidy told reporters at the U.S. Capitol that he spoke with Kennedy twice Monday and that the assurance he'd won from the now-secretary concerned ACIP's structure rather than membership. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy posted on X after the announcement. That fear was echoed by Democrats — who slammed the decision as a dangerous action that puts the health of Americans at risk. 'Secretary Kennedy is firing the 17 medical experts that advise our nation on immunization practices so he can stack the panel with a bunch of anti-vaccine wackos,' House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in a statement. Remember: FDA Commissioner Marty Makary slammed ACIP as a 'kangaroo court' earlier this month on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' What's next: HHS said ACIP will still meet June 25-27, but with new membership. IT'S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. Do you know how the decision to fire ACIP members went down? Send your tips to David Lim (dlim@ @davidalim or davidalim.49 on Signal) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@ @Gardner_LM or gardnerlm.01 on Signal). Eye on the FDA DECISION TIME ON RSV — Two drug products targeting respiratory syncytial virus — a common bug that can cause severe illness in young babies and older adults — are on deck FDA decisions this week. Another antibody: The agency approved Merck's preventive monoclonal antibody Monday — a day ahead of schedule — for infants' first RSV season, injecting more competition into the RSV market. The company has designed the drug, dubbed Enflonsia, to be the same single dose administered to babies of any weight — a departure from Sanofi's Beyfortus, which is made in different dosage amounts depending on a baby or toddler's age and weight. Dr. Octavio Ramilo of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, who worked as an investigator for Merck's trials for the drug, said its 'dosing convenience' and strong evidence showing reductions in disease and hospitalization make Enflonsia 'a promising new intervention to help protect infants from RSV.' Merck said it expects the CDC's external vaccine panel to make recommendations for the antibody's use at its next meeting in late June. The company statement came out just before HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s op-ed on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was published. Another vaccine? Moderna is slated to get a decision on its mRNA vaccine for RSV in high-risk adults under 60 by Thursday. The FDA approved mResvia last year for adults 60 and older, and the company has said the shot met its study goals in the younger population. But Kennedy's suspicion of mRNA technology has prompted the federal government to pull funding from Moderna's bird flu vaccine program and to condition future Covid vaccine approvals for healthy people on more data, making the FDA's decision this week worth watching. Moderna stopped working on a version of the vaccine for children last year after receiving reports of severe lower respiratory tract infections in immunized trial participants. In Congress IN THE HOT SEAT — 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. But Democrats will get a chance to ask Bhattacharya for more details when he testifies before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this morning. Pharma Moves Dr. Jennifer Peña is joining women's telehealth company Wisp as chief medical officer. She previously worked in similar roles at Oscar Health and Nurx and served as a White House physician under Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Document Drawer The FDA is publicizing a voluntary recall by Church & Dwight Co. of its Zicam nasal swabs and Orajel baby teething swabs due to potential fungi microbial contamination in the cotton swab components. No serious adverse events have been reported to date. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is reviewing a 340B rebate guidance from the Health Resources and Services Administration. WHAT WE'RE READING STAT's Helen Branswell examines efforts by philanthropic leaders to maintain a network of labs that conduct surveillance of measles and rubella around the world following cuts by the Trump administration to global aid dollars. A bipartisan bill that tackles tools Medicare Advantage plans use to get higher payments from the federal government could be included in Senate Republicans' megabill, but a key Democrat doesn't want it in the package, POLITICO's Robert King and Meredith Lee Hill report. Nearly 50 food industry groups and companies are being invited by the White House to discuss a recent report on its Make America Healthy Again goals, POLITICO's Grace Yarrow reports.


CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Senators grill NIH director on massive budget cuts
Congressional newsFacebookTweetLink Follow National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya faced critical questions from both Republican and Democratic senators Tuesday as he sought to defend the Trump administration's sweeping plans to reorganize the agency and slash budgets for medical research. Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME) swiftly criticized the current budget cuts and proposed changes, including a nearly 40% reduction to the National Institute of Aging's spending and 40% overall cuts to the agency's institutes. 'As the senator representing … the oldest state in the nation, this is a particular concern,' Collins said. 'I know personally what it means to so many American families.' The senator also said caps on indirect spending for universities are 'so poorly conceived' and have harmed U.S. medical research. 'It is leading to scientists leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries. It's causing clinical trials to be halted and promising medical research to be abandoned.' A federal court has paused the 15% cap on payments for indirect costs, but the administration assumed savings from the change in its 2026 fiscal year budget. Bhattacharya defended certain administrative changes while distancing himself from others, such as a pause on Northwestern University's grant funding, saying certain terminations happened before he assumed his role. In answering Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) about overall cuts, Bhattacharya took responsibility for other sweeping grant cancellations. 'There's changes in priorities at the NIH to move away from politicized science, I made those decisions,' he said. The hearing room was filled with purple-garbed advocates for Alzheimer's disease research and representatives of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network dressed in light blue. Baldwin harshly criticized the proposed $18 billion reduction to the NIH's total spending, saying cuts will resonate as the NIH funds 15,000 fewer medical research projects. 'While I think Congress will reject your budget request, it clearly shows the administration's intent,' Baldwin said. 'How is this proposal anything but intentionally sabotaging biomedical research?' Bhattacharya said he is 'happy to work with Congress' on the budget and more flexible spending on medical research.


CNN
43 minutes ago
- CNN
Senators grill NIH director on massive budget cuts
National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya faced critical questions from both Republican and Democratic senators Tuesday as he sought to defend the Trump administration's sweeping plans to reorganize the agency and slash budgets for medical research. Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME) swiftly criticized the current budget cuts and proposed changes, including a nearly 40% reduction to the National Institute of Aging's spending and 40% overall cuts to the agency's institutes. 'As the senator representing … the oldest state in the nation, this is a particular concern,' Collins said. 'I know personally what it means to so many American families.' The senator also said caps on indirect spending for universities are 'so poorly conceived' and have harmed U.S. medical research. 'It is leading to scientists leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries. It's causing clinical trials to be halted and promising medical research to be abandoned.' A federal court has paused the 15% cap on payments for indirect costs, but the administration assumed savings from the change in its 2026 fiscal year budget. Bhattacharya defended certain administrative changes while distancing himself from others, such as a pause on Northwestern University's grant funding, saying certain terminations happened before he assumed his role. In answering Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) about overall cuts, Bhattacharya took responsibility for other sweeping grant cancellations. 'There's changes in priorities at the NIH to move away from politicized science, I made those decisions,' he said. The hearing room was filled with purple-garbed advocates for Alzheimer's disease research and representatives of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network dressed in light blue. Baldwin harshly criticized the proposed $18 billion reduction to the NIH's total spending, saying cuts will resonate as the NIH funds 15,000 fewer medical research projects. 'While I think Congress will reject your budget request, it clearly shows the administration's intent,' Baldwin said. 'How is this proposal anything but intentionally sabotaging biomedical research?' Bhattacharya said he is 'happy to work with Congress' on the budget and more flexible spending on medical research.