Values Mismatch
Turning Frustration Into Clarity
A little over a week ago, an article was published interviewing several NIH scientists and employees who decided to leave the agency because of what they described as a “loss of scientific integrity.” The piece had significant reverberations across the research community. We are all acutely tuned in to what happens at the NIH because it shapes our careers, our teams, and our life’s work.
What struck me most wasn’t just the policy changes being described, it was the language the departing employees used. Several of them talked about recognizing “the red line you can’t cross.” I’ve been thinking about that phrase, and I’d like to reframe it in a slightly different way: as a values mismatch.
This idea reminded me of a conversation I had with my coach awhile ago. I’d like to think I’m generally easy to work with, but there are a few people who consistently feel difficult. In that discussion, I came to realize it wasn’t that those individuals were inherently hard to work with. More often, we were operating from different values. As soon as I saw it that way, my frustration shifted. Differences in values create real emotional stress, but they can also be named and managed.
All of this led me to a broader question: How do we navigate a world where values don’t align between science and politics, between academia and the public, and even among the people we work with every day?
In this post, I want to explore value mismatch in three connected arenas:
(1) the widening gap between scientific values and political decision-making,
(2) the tension between what academia rewards and what the public actually needs, and
(3) the everyday value conflicts we experience in our own workplaces and collaborations.
We Are Swimming in Value Mismatch
As scientists, we are living in a bath of value mismatch right now. It’s everywhere you look.
A loss of transparency and predictability in funding decisions
Tension between fiscal control and long-term scientific planning (i.e., Forward funding show down)
Tension between peer review and political priorities
Confusion about what kinds of science will be supported
A growing sense that the values guiding science policy may not match the values that guide science itself
When values feel aligned, even hard problems feel manageable. When they don’t, everything feels heavier. So how do we navigate this moment?
Start With Knowing Your Own Values
Most of the time, when we feel exasperated with someone (or a government organization) and can’t quite figure out why, it’s because a value boundary has been crossed. Recognizing that requires clarity about what we actually value.
How Do You Figure That Out?
Make a list. If you need a starting point, Brené Brown’s “Dare to Lead” values list is a great prompt: https://brenebrown.com/resources/dare-to-lead-list-of-values/ (No, haven’t read the book but it’s on my list!).
The goal isn’t to choose the ones that sound nice or that you even necessarily aspire to. The goal is to get to a short list (ideally five or fewer) that guide your decisions. Don’t just think about work, think about your whole life. Spend some time with this.
Then ask yourself:
How do these values show up day to day?
How do they shape my expectations of others?
Are my current activities aligned with my values?
If there’s misalignment, how is that impacting me and how can I correct it?
When we’re consistently in environments that don’t align with our values, we don’t feel great. We’re also usually less effective. Knowing your values doesn’t solve every problem, but it gives you a compass.
The Values We Claim vs. The Values We Reward
This exercise also highlights a persistent tension inside academic science.
We say our values are things like:
Truth-seeking
Curiosity
Rigor
Integrity
Collaboration
Openness
Creativity
Mentorship
Equity
Public good
But the values most clearly rewarded by our systems are often different:
High-impact publications
NIH grants
Awards
Membership in prestigious organizations
Intellectual property
Ok, yes those are not actually values, they are metrics. The value here is essentially “achievement” and particularly individual achievement. Those are not bad things. But, when achievement metrics overshadow the values we claim to care about, we create internal conflict for ourselves and for our institutions.
One value we talk about constantly, but rarely define well, is impact: making the world a better (and healthier) place. I talked a little about this in a previous post but I think this is worth exploring further in the future and how we define impact in terms of promotion and success criteria in academia.
A Different Way to Think About Value
All of this got me thinking: maybe we also need to get clearer about the value we provide to the people we ultimately serve. If the core problem is value mismatch, then part of the solution is getting clearer about what “value” actually means.
What if we thought of the public as our “customer”? I recently came across a great article in Harvard Business Review about the “Elements of Value.” It argues that value isn’t just one thing. It has layers. These layers are defined in terms of business and selling something to a customer but I think can be translated. Here’s how they define them:
Functional – saves time, reduces cost, simplifies
Emotional – reduces anxiety, creates trust
Life-changing – motivation, self-actualization
Social impact – contributing to something larger
The higher up the pyramid you go, the more powerful and differentiating the value becomes. The more value elements your product addresses, the more loyalty and stronger impact. And, quality stands above everything. No amount of emotional or social value can compensate for poor quality.
The authors suggest a design-thinking approach to value:
Listen deeply
Identify what matters most
Generate ideas
Prototype
Test and refine
That process feels very familiar to those of us in research. (I love applying design-thinking in study design and development).
Putting Research Into This Framework
If we treat research output as the service, and the public as the customer, then the “price” isn’t money; it’s trust, attention, tax dollars, time, and policy focus. What value does good research provide?
Functional
Better evidence
Safer treatments
Smarter health systems
More efficient care
Emotional
Less fear for patients
More clarity
More trust in the care provided
Life-Changing
Improved quality of life
Ability to work, parent, and thrive
Long-term health improvements
Social Impact
More equitable systems
Smarter public policy
Better population health
Seen this way, research isn’t just a collection of studies and/or papers. It is layered value creation for society. And if we thought about our work this way more often, many of our internal value conflicts might look different.
That perspective can help, even in this complicated moment. Despite the noise and the political priorities that sometimes overshadow traditional models of science, we can still do meaningful work for society. It may require reorienting and reframing how we operate, but we can continue to align with shared values and shared goals, especially the core goal of making the world a better place. It’s a shift, and shifts are hard, but they’re also possible.
Back to the Everyday Reality
Of course, most of my day is spent trying to get complicated things done with real humans: patients, trainees, collaborators, administrators, insurers. (Mice may protest and decline involvement, but people can do it in so many more ways.) The more I think about it, many of our day-to-day challenges that create emotional stress are forms of value misalignment.
Because value conflicts trigger emotional responses, they’re important to spot (even for those of us data people that don’t see ourselves as particularly emotional).
Common signs include:
Chronic frustration that doesn’t improve with better processes
Feeling “off” even when goals are technically being met
Conflicts that seem personal but are really philosophical
Decisions that feel wrong even when they are rational
Exhaustion that isn’t just about workload
Once you name a value mismatch, things get easier. It stops being: “that person is impossible.” And becomes: “we are operating from different values.” From there, you can have a much more productive conversation.
You can:
State your values neutrally
Acknowledge the other person’s likely values
Figure out what can be negotiated
Identify what cannot
Decide where alignment is possible and where it isn’t
Sometimes alignment can be found. Sometimes it can’t. And that’s useful information.
Clarity Is Power
Value mismatch is uncomfortable. But it’s also clarifying. It helps us understand:
Why certain situations drain us
Why some collaborations feel effortless
Where our true boundaries are
When it might be time to change course
In a moment when science itself feels pulled in conflicting directions, getting clearer about our own values, and about the value we aim to create for the public, may be the most grounding work we can do. Because when we know what we stand for, we can navigate almost anything. That’s true in our labs/research groups, in our institutions, and especially in moments like this one at the NIH.
References
https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/10/nih-resign-protest-four-leaders-cite-interference-censorship/
https://hbr.org/2013/01/when-your-values-clash-with-yo
https://hbr.org/2017/05/how-corporate-values-get-hijacked-and-misused
https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-elements-of-value
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00058-1
My disclosures: I am an academic rheumatologist, epidemiologist, and mom. My research is funded by the NIH, private foundations, pharmaceutical companies, and philanthropy. I consult for and work with pharmaceutical companies in my research. I am co-founder of a non-profit organization and CEO/founder of Research Pathfinder. My thoughts are my own and not reflective of my employer.