Andrew Huberman interviews NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya

My takeaways from the 4 hour interview

You might ask, “What made you watch a four-hour interview!?” (especially those of you who are waiting for me to respond to an email…) Jet lag. I was in Barcelona on day two of a meeting this past week, wide awake at 11 p.m., and stumbled on this NIH discussion while looking for clues about what’s coming next. I watched the first half that night and the rest on my flight home. I’ve also since listened to Bhattacharya’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on June 10 regarding the proposed budget. He reiterated many of these same talking points there, though with more focus on the budget itself (which I’ll cover later). It was worthwhile! There were several important themes I want to share but I’m going to do this over a few installments. It is over five hours worth of content afterall!

Below is a brief introduction to the themes discussed and Bhattacharya’s positions. Each of these comes with nuance, which he navigates well during both the podcast and the hearing. I’ll break these down in more detail in future writings.

1. How do taxpayers get their money’s worth from NIH funding?
Bhattacharya emphasized the need for public access to research results, engagement with the public on science, a re-examination of profits from NIH-funded work, and the tension between studying diseases versus improving the health of the population.

2. Indirect costs:
While not a major focus, he suggested we revisit how indirect rates are assigned. For example, indirect rates could differ by research type and/or allow for competition on indirect rates by institution and even by program.

3. A need for innovation and room for failure in science:
The current system is risk-averse and funds “safe science.” He advocates for changing how we evaluate research at the NIH (and within academia) as well as increasing geographic diversity in science to reduce groupthink and foster new ideas.

4. Support for early-career investigators is key:
They bring fresh perspectives and take more risks. He does note that pairing them with established scientists remains important and pays dividends.

5. Fix incentives in science:
We need to value negative results, replication, corrections, and team science. The current “rockstar model” in academia undermines collaboration and progress.

6. Replication matters:
Replication studies are underfunded and undervalued. We should reward investigators who test the validity of published findings.

7. Make America Healthy Again:
NIH must focus more on improving the health of the U.S. population. While basic science is critical, there’s been too much emphasis on chronic diseases in older populations and not enough on prevention and reaching people where they are in order to improve the health of the country.

8. DEI:
NIH should support research that benefits all people. (There’s a lot of nuance here, so I’ll leave it at that for now.)

9. We need to rebuild the scientific community’s role and perception in society after the pandemic:
(This is a very nuanced discussion I won’t even attempt to summarize in a bullet. We’ll come back to this later because I do think it’s important.)

10. Protect academic freedom and open debate:
If we don’t listen to dissent or disagreement, we don’t move science forward.

11. Two hot-topic research areas:

· Vaccines: Vaccines should continue to be studied. Most vaccines today have excellent safety profiles. He believes we learned important lessons from COVID about how future vaccine trials should be designed.

· Autism: We need more data on etiology (not just related to vaccines). Keeping an open mind about causality is important, and NIH will support efforts to better understand autism.

12. Restructuring NIH for the future:
The proposal to consolidate the 27 NIH centers and institutes into 8 is now with Congress, as is the budget reduction (covered in more detail in the Senate hearing).

So, after listening to this four-hour, 26-minute marathon—plus a Senate hearing that lasted over an hour (okay, all of which I listened to at 2x speed)—what are my thoughts? I’m both encouraged and a little scared.

Change is scary. Most of what’s been discussed is still at a high level, so it’s hard to decipher what it means for any given individual, team, or field. The uncertainty is unsettling. And if there is truly a 40% cut in the NIH budget and serious reductions to indirect rates, that would represent a major blow to U.S. science—and, by extension, global scientific progress. [Deep breathing over here…]

That said, Bhattacharya comes across as level-headed and a clear communicator. Many of the themes he emphasized are highly agreeable. His stated priorities resonate deeply with me as an epidemiologist: a) Improve the scientific rigor, reproducibility, and relevance, b) Support early-career investigators, c) Spark innovation, and d) Tackle big problems and improve the health of the population.

I am an optimist – I should tell you that in advance. I see the glass half full here. Some of these ideas may seem obvious (e.g., our work should make the population healthier, we should communicate our results to the public and involve them), but we haven’t always done these things well. We’ve been in a steady state for a long time. Change isn’t all bad. There’s a lot of opportunity in this list. Let’s explore it together!

In case you want to listen to:

Senate Hearing:

Interview: