Mallory Harris, PhD

White House stalls release of approved US science budgets The US Congress rejected sweeping cuts to science agencies. But the NIH, the NSF and NASA have had their spending slowed.

Congress rejected massive cuts to US science budgets for 2026, but much of the money still isn’t flowing to researchers.

The culprit? The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is quietly slow-walking the release of funds. 🧵👇

bsky.app/profile/jenn...

Comment from Michael: For my prerecorded question, I actually did, in fact, rewrite the grant twice and asked for clarification on what needed to change (with no real guidance hence the guessing game). The proposal was submitted in October 2023, so the request to change everything in July 2025 and again in January 2026 did not really provide me with any clarity on what was a “DEI activity” about my project. Even worse, I am unclear how this isn’t scientific censorship that the Director is famous for critiquing.

When you hear the NIH Director's attempt to discredit recent PhD graduate @michaeldgreen.phd (whose career is in limbo due to NIH grant terminations), remember that Bhattacharya spent years complaining that the former NIH Director called his views fringe in a private email.

Jay Bhattacharya 1:10:08 I think it has to be organic. I think the way that the NIH has addressed the problems of funding early career researchers has been partly like, it makes sense, like training programs, but also partly by essentially, affirmative action, right? So you have a lower score allowed to be funded because, just because they’re early career, it has to be that that’s never going to work. What has to work is you have to say we’re going to make a commitment to funding cutting edge ideas. And typically it’s, it tends to be early career researchers with those ideas. So it’s not an it’s not an affirmative action approach. It’s a selecting the best ideas that you know with a portfolio that that includes, you know, sort of ideas that you know, if they work out, they can be fundamentally transformative, even though some people may think it may not work out, because they’re so close to the frontier, right? I have told the Institute directors that they are now authorized to do make those decisions. I’m not going to hold them accountable that every grant succeeds. What I’m going to hold them accountable for is that the portfolio of grants they have actually advance the health and well being of the American people. As the 20% I mean, that’s, again, there were, there were fewer total grants funded each at a higher rate. So the, it’s just a 20% versus the what the other, what’s the denominator you’re talking about? So it’s the, a lot of the analysis is sort of that I’ve seen done on on the portfolio, is just naive about basic econometrics. Brinda Adhikari 1:11:39 I mean, that came from NIH. So I just wanted to make sure- Jay Bhattacharya 1:11:41 Yeah, but you have to have a control group, like 20% relative to what. So I just, I think you got to be the the key thing is the structures and the incentives and the systems. And we’ve set and put in place structures, incentives and systems to empower the scientists at the NIH to make decisions about their portfolio th…

I want to specifically give @brindabee.bsky.social a lot of credit here, because I have not seen anyone point out so clearly the discrepancy between Bhattacharya's stated desire to increase opportunities for early career researchers & his actions. When pressed, he has no plan.

What was the control arm of the Santa Clara seroprevalence study?

Brinda Adhikari 51:42 Okay, so Jay, what would you say to Michael Green in that situation? Jay Bhattacharya 51:47 I’d say that he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to rethink his grant. Like, we gave him the opportunity, and he didn’t take advantage of it, right? So he again, I didn’t know this grant specifically, but, like, I’ll tell you, like, based on the title, what I hear is a grant where it has as a premise, something that, in principle, couldn’t have a control group. And so does bad science. So I, you know, I do again- Brinda Adhikari 52:09 So what would have made us better? Jay Bhattacharya 52:11 Just okay for let me just finish Brinda. So I think if, if I say that, I provisionally, because, again, I’ve not read his grant so, but based on that 90 second snippet, he had the opportunity to be more specific about his hypotheses, make them actually scientific, give them give make arguments for control groups. We gave him that opportunity, and he didn’t take it. That’s what I’d say.

Bhattacharya: ...And the total dollar amounts, the total total sort of commitment they have, is much less, just as a total, as a as just a matter of again, math and so and the other thing I’d say is, for young researchers, you know, in the 1980s the NIH, the typical first large grant, the age of researcher getting first large grant. The NIH was in the mid 30s, and now it’s in the mid it’s in the mid 40s. It’s been creeping up for now decades. We have essentially, and that young researcher that you had play, right? That’s, that’s, you can see, you can hear the angst in his his voice about this the you know, because he was applying for a postdoc, we now require one, two, three postdocs before you can try your ideas out. That’s something I’m I absolutely want to fix at the NIH it’s and it’s a cultural shift that’s taken decades to get to this point. And what that means is that we have to start funding early career researchers. We have to start funding researchers with newer ideas. And that means that there’s going to be upheaval. People who are used to getting grants that are, you know, for one, two, three, four renewals, 20 years in, where they’re doing marginal science, are now going to have a harder time getting research dollars than researchers that are, that are with brand new with brand new ideas that potentially can make a tremendous difference in the health and well being of people. Alzheimer’s disease, type two diabetes, rare diseases, you know, we Parkinson’s disease, we need to, we need new ideas to advance our, these areas, because there’s tremendous suffering. Brinda Adhikari 1:09:42 And I tell you, Jay, I love that that was the first part of your priorities, was training future biomedical scientists. I think the only thing I just want to press you on, just to explain, is that I did see NIH data to show that in 2025 there were, there were, like 20% fewer early stage investigators funded than the previous year. What is the explanation? Because I know you …

It is was so discouraging to hear the NIH Director respond with sneering condescension, dismissing a young researcher's work as "bad science."

He then had the audacity at the end of the podcast to use Dr. Green as an example of someone whose "angst" he is trying address, providing no plan to do so.

I especially appreciate that they invited @michaeldgreen.phd to share how grant terminations under Bhattacharya's leadership are driving early career researchers out of science. I have not aware of another instance Bhattacharya has had to face this directly.
bsky.app/profile/mich...

I have never seen him challenged this directly and this extensively. Bravo to the @whyshoulditrustyou.bsky.social team for their efforts to make this a thoughtful, evidence-based conversation. I am disappointed with the NIH Director/Acting CDC Director's responses.

Dr. Bhattacharya: I think that, in epidemiology, we’re going to want to continue to track cases, but to tell the public at large that one case is exactly like another, when in fact they’re not—if you’re older and unvaccinated, you’d be more concerned about the case, those are the kind of cases you might want to track. If a child gets a case positive, but with very few symptoms… why should we be telling the public or panicking the public over that? So it’s not a question of should we track or not track. To me, it’s a question of putting these numbers in context: we have protected the vulnerable—by vaccinating the older population, we have provided them with enormous protection against severe disease and death. That’s why you see, even as the cases have risen in Sweden in the past wave, or in the UK in this past wave, and in Florida in this past wave, the number of deaths have not risen proportionally. Why? Because we protected the vulnerable. The key thing to me is hospitalizations and deaths from COVID. While we’ve done an incredible job at decoupling the cases from the deaths, the public focus on cases at this point, I think, only serves to panic people without actually serving any other public health purpose. We should absolutely continue to protect the vulnerable. And certainly there’s reasons to have public interest in that, but to track cases for its own sake, I think, is now counterproductive.

For context, right as the delta wave picked up in Florida he told Governor DeSantis at a roundtable that there was no need to worry about cases going up because deaths wouldn't follow. Our Acting CDC Director.

On August 1st, 2021, Governor Ron DeSantis quoted you as saying, “We have protected the vulnerable by vaccinating the older population.” That same day, the headlines read Florida Reports A Record Number Of COVID-19 Cases. Here are some headlines that followed immediately after this: Florida Leads Nation in Number of COVID-19 Deaths of Nursing Home Residents and Staff, August 2021. School Closures Reported In Five Florida Counties; Districts ‘Drowning’ In COVID, August 2021. 15 Miami-Dade Public School Staff Members Die Of COVID In Just 10 Days, September 2021. Child Covid Deaths More Than Doubled in Florida as Kids Returned to the Classroom, September 2021. Had Florida protected the vulnerable at that time? Why did schools close while you were advising the state?

Someone should ask about this! (via @joho.bsky.social)

The outcome is baked in: people will trust public health less. Means' audience is already distrustful, and people who believe in science will follow. More than half who heard about RFK vax policies say it reduces their trust in the health agencies.
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/the-trust-...

15 States Sue H.H.S. Over Revisions to Vaccine Schedule

Breaking: Aiming to reverse recent changes to federal vaccine recommendations, 15 states led by Democrats announced on Tuesday that they were suing the Trump administration.

Gift link: www.nytimes.com/2026/02/24/h...

It turns out the hero of a comedy film about the pandemic has a weird idea of what is funny...

bsky.app/profile/mala...

It is funny that the compare it to Thank You for Smoking. Bhattacharya worked for the Hoover Institution, which propped up deniers of the risks of smoking and the Brownstone Institute, led by an advocate of teen smoking (& child labor). Brownstone also funding film...

I would guess Martin Kulldorff is a contender.

Also, as a reminder, while Bhattacharya spent years claiming that "the woke left Biden admin" censored him on social media, the guy who ran his website has said publicly that Facebook pulled it because *anti-vaxxers* were mad about it.

www.techdirt.com/2024/12/10/f...

Read this thread

Opinion | The Human Cost of Trump’s War on Science

This piece by @jeneeninterlandi.bsky.social is one for the ages. The damage Donald Trump (under the guidance of Russell Vought) has done to biomedical research is profound and will be long-lasting. It is a national tragedy to be measured in the sick and the dead. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/o...

"COVID revisionists within HHS leadership are disinterested in good-faith dialogue and improvements to our infrastructure. They are united by a grievance and intend to steer administration policy away from evidence and down a path of retribution." 🎯

New Documents Reveal a Controversial Vaccine Study's Unusual Path to CDC Approval A new investigation has found irregularities in the ethics review of a grant to study effects of a birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine in Guinea-Bissau.

New from @katherineeban.bsky.social in @rollingstone.com: CDC appointees bypassed the agency’s scientists to rush-fund a study questioning the hep B birth dose. The ethics committee president says his name was used on the approval without his knowledge.

www.rollingstone.com/politics/pol...

New CDC Director Has Questioned Vaccine Safety Jay Bhattacharya’s recent new appointment may suggest more changes to the vaccine schedule.

In 2021, Jay Bhattacharya resigned from the scientific board of an org after I pointed out it made false claims abt Covid vaccines.

Since then, he's increasingly embraced anti-vaccine falsehoods. Vaccines are not safe w/ CDC Director Bhattacharya.
www.importantcontext.news/p/new-cdc-di...

As always, extremely insightful reporting here from @aniloza.bsky.social

Three postdoctoral fellowships in quantitative biology are available as part of a new Quantitative Biology Initiative in the Department of Biology at the University of Maryland.

Best consideration date: 3/14

Job Ad:
umd.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/UMCP/j...

Department:
biology.umd.edu/people

After years fearmongering about fantastic caricatures of Fauci+Collins, he is doing what he accused them of & more.

Unfortunately scientific orgs and universities still invite him to give unchallenged speeches where his words sound nice & actions go completely unexamined.

bsky.app/profile/mala...

I spoke with @melodyschreiber.com about the deep irony of Bhattacharya serving as Acting Director of CDC & Director of NIH simultaneously.

For years, he has advocated for separation between these role, framing this type of arrangement as a conflict of interest that would have chilling effects.

On a recent podcast appearance, Bhattacharya said the funniest experience he's had with Trump was standing next him while the President gave misleading medical advice to pregnant people.

He's now NIH Director & Acting Director of CDC

Trump's pick for NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, sometimes says positive things about certain childhood vaccines. Can we count on him as a counterweight to RFK Jr's anti-vaccine agenda?

He campaigned for RFK and has a tendency to get really quiet/confused when faced with vaccine lies directly. 🧵

"Covidian" is shorthand for Branch Covidians

I saw the news and It's bad