NIH reportedly loses 2 top leaders in 2 days
NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak told staffers in an email Tuesday he was retiring effective immediately, according to CBS News. Along with being principal deputy director, Tabak also served as the agency's deputy ethics counselor, having been appointed to both roles in 2010.
Tabak served as acting head of the NIH from December 2021 to November 2023, after the institute's former director Francis Collins stepped down.
As CBS reported, Tabak had not been expected to retire until the fall but told a colleague he felt it was necessary to retire at this time.
Just a day after Tabak's abrupt retirement, it was reported that Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research, will leave the agency at the end of the week.
According to STAT, acting NIH Director Matthew Memoli informed staff in an email of Lauer's departure, thanking him for his 'exemplary service to NIH and the American people.'
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House for comment.
These departures are occurring as the NIH is undergoing significant upheaval. Last week, the agency issued an order slashing federal funding for research projects, alarming lawmakers, universities and institutions across the country. The order has been stayed, though biomedical researchers remain wary for the future.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Bhattacharya and Kennedy split on mRNA cuts
AROUND THE AGENCIES National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya is making the case that mRNA vaccine technology is 'promising, but not yet ready for prime time.' He cites a lack of public trust in the technology as the reason his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,recently canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects. Bhattacharya weighed in on Kennedy's decision in a conversation over the weekend with Steve Bannon, the longtime Trump ally and prominent MAGA figure, on Bannon's 'War Room' podcast: 'The reason that he did that — and I think it's very important for people to understand — as far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable,' Bhattacharya said. 'You can't have a platform where such a large fraction of the population distrusts the platform, if you're going to use it for vaccines, and expect it to work.' But, but, but: Kennedy, who has long been suspicious of the mRNA vaccine platform, offered an explanation for the funding cuts that contradicts Bhattacharya's reasoning. 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,' Kennedy said in a video posted on social media last week, referring to Covid-19 and flu mRNA vaccines. Big picture: Scientists and drugmakers worry that Kennedy's skepticism of mRNA could stifle cancer treatment developments, our Lauren Gardner reports. mRNA technology can instruct the immune system to attack problem proteins, so it holds promise as a customized treatment for rare cancers and diseases. As such, dozens of mRNA therapies are being studied or are in the drug-development pipeline. Bhattacharya seemed aware of the technology's use beyond flu and Covid vaccines. After telling Bannon that mRNA technology wasn't ready for widespread vaccine use, he added: 'For cancer, maybe it's another story.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. A swarm of jellyfish shut down reactors at a French nuclear power station, Ketrin Jochecová, our POLITICO colleague in Europe, reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. OPERATING ROOM A large-scale study of New York's Mount Sinai Health System suggests that artificial intelligence could help emergency departments better handle their patient loads. In the study, researchers from Mount Sinai trained an AI model on 1.8 million emergency department visits between January 2019 and December 2023. Then they tested the model by comparing it with two months' worth of nurse triage assessments of nearly 50,000 patient visits across the system's urban and suburban hospitals. The result: Nurse predictions were 81.6 percent accurate, while the AI model's assessments were 85.4 percent accurate. The study, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health in July, had a few limitations, the authors noted, including that the research was conducted at a single health system over a short time span. Outcomes might differ in another setting, and longer-term trends could yield different results. Bird's eye view: 'The strength of this approach is its ability to turn complex data into timely, actionable insights for clinical teams — freeing them up to focus less on logistics and more on delivering the personal, compassionate care that only humans can provide,' Dr. Eyal Klang, study co-author and director of the Generative AI Research Program at Mount Sinai, said in a statement.
Scientific American
32 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump admin may reclassify marijuana: Would that make it legal in the US?
(NEXSTAR) — At the end of last year, it seemed that marijuana could be rescheduled in the U.S. That idea came screeching to a halt when proceedings were put on pause in January. There were early hopes that the then-incoming Trump administration would get the ball rolling, but that didn't immediately materialize either. On Monday, however, President Donald Trump confirmed his administration is 'looking at' reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. 'We're looking at reclassification, and we'll make a determination over, I'd say, the next few weeks,' Trump said during a press conference, The Hill reported. Can TSA stop you for marijuana in your luggage? Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, but the latest efforts, launched under the Biden administration, would put it as a Schedule III drug. The process of rescheduling marijuana — or trying to — has historically played out over years and even decades, Paul Armentano, the deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), previously told Nexstar. It's difficult to say how fast efforts could play out now, but Heather Trela, director of operations and fellow at the Rockefeller Institute, told Nexstar in April that they could be fueled by Trump. 'If President Trump made this a priority, I think this would move,' she explained. If it does happen, it would be the largest DEA policy change in more than 50 years, but you may not notice an immediate impact. If marijuana is rescheduled, will it become legal nationwide? The short, immediate answer is no. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana is considered by the DEA to be it without a 'currently accepted medical use' and has a 'high potential for abuse.' Heroin and LSD are also Schedule I drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended in 2023 that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III drug. Ketamine and some anabolic steroids are Schedule III substances, which have a 'moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.' Even if marijuana is rescheduled, it would still be a controlled substance that's subject to federal rules and regulations. More importantly, rescheduling does not decriminalize marijuana or make it legal for recreational use on the federal level. Instead, the medical uses of cannabis would be recognized, and federal regulators would acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. It would also become easier for marijuana research to be conducted. Companies could see a cut in the federal taxes they pay, too. Currently, businesses involved in 'trafficking' in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can't deduct rent, payroll or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more. As a Schedule III drug, marijuana would still be regulated by the DEA and the thousands of dispensaries nationwide would have to register with the agency, just as pharmacies do. Critics say this would come with strict reporting requirements, something dispensaries may despise and the DEA may not be ready for. Trump promised lower grocery prices 'on Day One.' Here's what happened The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation's criminal justice system would also likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years. Then there's the United States' international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis. In 2016, during the Obama administration, the DEA cited the U.S.' international obligations and the findings of a federal court of appeals in Washington in denying a similar request to reschedule marijuana. Where do state efforts to legalize marijuana stand? More than three dozen states have legalized some form of medical marijuana already. Nearly half have legalized it for recreational use among adults. Meanwhile, some states that have already legalized marijuana have seen efforts to roll back voter-approved laws or repeal them. That includes Ohio, where some have been trying to rewrite the recreational marijuana law voters approved two years ago. Other states have made adjustments to aspects of the law, like lowering legal potency levels, Trela said. In some cases, like Virginia, lawmakers have been unable to pass a sales bill, so while possessing cannabis is legal, there is nowhere in the state to legally purchase it. The federal government could, however, turn over the decision of legalization to the states, as it did during prohibition. A bill introduced in the House earlier this year could do just that. The bipartisan STATES 2.0 Act would 'end the federal prohibition of cannabis and allow states to determine their own cannabis policies.' It has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
