An unstable research environment is undermining scientific advances and public trust
Concern 4 of the Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later
Today, we highlight the fourth of nine concerns detailed in The Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later, a comprehensive overview of the harmful policies witnessed by NIH staff since January 2025: an unstable research environment is undermining scientific advances and public trust. In case you missed them, we’ve already covered concerns 1 (an antiscience agenda), 2 (discriminatory policies), and 3 (ignoring ethical standards). We will be sharing the remaining concerns in the coming weeks.
If you share these concerns, please add your voice (named or anonymous) so we can draw attention to these issues. Read the full report and learn more about the Bethesda Declaration Movement on the 27 UNIHTED website.
Concern 4: An unstable research environment is undermining scientific advances and public trust
Why It Matters
Instability and uncertainty are rampant across the NIH and the broader scientific ecosystem under Director Bhattacharya and Deputy Director Memoli. They have implemented radical, abrupt, and careless changes in policies related to funding opportunities, funding decisions, grant terminations, contracting, peer review, and staffing across every institute, position, and level in both intramural and extramural programs. Reduced funding, shifting policies, and political pressure hamper NIH and NIH-funded researchers. The United States faces dire consequences:
Reduced trust in NIH and scientific institutions. To change policies abruptly and retroactively undermines the legitimacy of NIH. As discussed in Concern 3, this uncertainty has introduced risk to research participants, thereby damaging the public’s trust in NIH. Terminating clinical studies without cause harms NIH’s credibility as a steward of our nation’s successful research enterprise, especially among vulnerable populations already underrepresented in research. This loss of goodwill further jeopardizes future participation in health research. Operating in a shifting landscape and under threats to their employment, NIH staff cannot effectively advise scientists on navigating NIH policies, breaking trusted relationships between program staff and the scientific community. Despite his stated desire to increase trust in science, Director Bhattacharya’s actions (and inactions) have accomplished the opposite. Since Director Bhattacharya assumed his role, the public’s trust in NIH has declined.
Loss of current and future biomedical scientists. World-class scientists are leaving the country, no longer confident in the future of U.S. science. For investigators, reduced and delayed NIH spending has created a hypercompetitive funding environment that threatens the viability of their labs, impacting employment as well as scientific progress. Funding constraints have also reduced the solvency of academic institutions, and universities have been forced to rescind offers of admission to graduate programs. Funding instability disproportionately affects early career scientists as they grapple with reduced opportunities for training and few job openings. In a 2025 National Postdoctoral Association survey, more than 50% of 378 respondents reported their funding has been cut, 44% reported threats to their positions, 11% reported they had lost their jobs, and 11% reported salary or stipend freezes. Uncertainty in research funding has reached the private sector as well, with biotech and pharma losing federal grants and private investments.
Future therapies that won’t materialize. Funding uncertainty and reductions undermine long-term planning and momentum of successful research programs. Lack of support has forced U.S. scientists to reduce or close productive and promising research programs. In a 2026 survey of nearly 1,000 U.S. scientists, more than 40% reported canceling planned research. Although we will never know the scientific advances that could have occurred had research funding remained stable, projections suggest funding cuts could reduce development of treatments.
A less-safe country. NIH science contributes to the Nation’s safety. By undermining its scientific enterprise, the United States voluntarily and incomprehensibly cedes its national security, pandemic preparedness, biodefense, and ability to respond to public health emergencies.
Examples
Reduced spending of NIH appropriations heightens funding uncertainty. Director Bhattacharya and Deputy Director Memoli, with direction from OMB Director Russell Vought, have systematically implemented processes that undermine NIH’s ability to disburse congressionally appropriated funds for health research, including the following:
New layers of justification and political approval for awarding NIH grants are required by NIH’s Office of Extramural Research. Director Bhattacharya’s Unified Funding Strategy forces NIH institutes to abandon transparent funding processes based on peer review and requires staff to continue debating the merit of already-funded outstanding grant applications.
Disruption of grant payment systems. The administration infamously held hostage NIH grants and contracts that were already awarded at Columbia, Harvard, and other universities to coerce these institutions into adopting policies sharply restricting free speech and academic freedom. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) associates prevented these institutions from withdrawing funds for active grants by blocking disbursement in the government’s Payment Management System.
NIH mandated multiyear funding (MYF) for 50% of all new research dollars beginning in July 2025. Most NIH grant applications are submitted with two- to five-year budgets, which are typically paid on an annual basis pending programmatic review and approval. With MYF, the entire cost of the two- to five-year award is paid in year 1. Because MYF obligates a larger portion of the annual budget to a single study, this rapid transition to MYF effectively shrank the NIH budget, contributing to a 24% decline in new research funded by NIH in 2025 compared to 2024 (as further discussed in Concern 6). This introduced crippling opportunity costs for new research and sowed chaos and uncertainty in the U.S. scientific workforce. While the fiscal year 2026 NIH appropriations bill constrains the use of MYF, the bill anchors MYF to fiscal year 2025 levels (about 39% of new research dollars), thus allowing comparable contraction of new research in fiscal year 2026 as we previously saw in fiscal year 2025.
NIH cut 35% of all contract spending in response to Executive Order 14210 in February 2025. Small biotech businesses across the United States saw their congressionally mandated research and development contracts abruptly terminated. NIH’s intramural labs found themselves with insufficient staff to care for research animals or procure routine supplies. The 35% cut has introduced staffing shortages at the Clinical Center (as discussed in Concern 3), impeded critical scientific workshops, and interrupted access to critical resources for NIH laboratories.
The threat of research terminations impedes scientific progress. In 2025, NIH terminated 5,843 research grants, many for containing words or concepts the administration finds objectionable. These actions were justified post-hoc by new language in the Code of Federal Regulations (2 C.F.R. 200.340) that went into effect after many of the terminations occurred. Subsequent NIH terms of award force individuals and grantee institutions to agree to termination if “an award no longer effectuates program goals or agency priorities.” Previously, grant termination required evidence of ethical violations, scientific misconduct, or scientific justifications based on efficacy, futility or participant safety. Most fully funded NIH grants now remain vulnerable to full or partial termination on vague “administration priority” grounds. The threat of termination looms over all NIH grant recipients. Scientists concerned about potential termination struggle to effectively manage complex studies. This challenge is particularly acute in clinical trials, where the threat of termination introduces quandaries about the ethics of recruiting participants into a study that could be terminated on a whim (as discussed in Concern 3).
Inexperienced, unqualified and dishonest leadership breaks public trust. Historically, NIH leaders are selected for their scientific expertise, with only the Directors of the NIH and NCI nominated by the President. Director Bhattacharya, Deputy Director Memoli, and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have purged respected and experienced leaders across NIH, in some cases offering demotions disguised as “reassignments” or “details” and forcing leaders into retirement. Since January 2025, the brain drain has included Ms. Julie Berko and Drs. Monica Bertagnolli, Diana Bianchi, John Burklow, Francis Collins, Gary Gibbons, Eric Green, Amy Kelley, Walter Koroshetz, Clifford Lane, Michael Lauer, Jeanne Marrazo, Kathy Neuzil, Eliseo Perez-Stables, Tara Schwetz, Larry Tabak, Shannon Zenk, and many other trusted, respected, and eminent scientists and administrators.
None of them have been replaced with people of equivalent stature. Replacements such as Seanna Cranston, Rachel Riley, and James McElroy have arrived with minimal-to-no experience in science, health care, or health administration. Some NIH institutes installed politically aligned individuals in newly invented positions, such as Chief Operating Officer (COO) or Chief Science Advisor (CSA). In October 2025, during the government shutdown when hiring processes are normally on hold, NIH removed the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and replaced him with Kyle Walsh, the former roommate and friend of Vice President Vance. In at least one case, this directly increased waste, fraud, and abuse at NIH, at least temporarily. Within 3 months of his appointment, Eric Schnabel, NIH’s COO plucked from the defense industry, was investigated and fired after NIH awarded a contract to an entity that employed his wife.
Newly appointed HHS and NIH leadership have actively eroded trust in NIH and American science and risked the well-being of the American public. HHS Secretary Kennedy has spread dangerous misinformation on public health, which has not been refuted by Dr. Bhattacharya in his roles as either the NIH Director nor Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Acting Director. In his first NIH staff town hall, while trying to rationalize major shifts in agency policy and practice, Director Bhattacharya accused NIH of causing the COVID-19 pandemic. He has continued to promote one-sided COVID-related conspiracy theories through the so-called Scientific Freedom Lecture Series, ironically described as promoting “the principles of gold standard science.” Despite ample evidence on the impact that structural racism has on minority health and health disparities and validated approaches to measure the phenomenon, Director Bhattacharya continues to insist that structural racism is not a legitimate line of research. Director Bhattacharya has also repeatedly obfuscated the state of NIH operations, providing dishonest representations to Congress and the public. In short, positions of authority and accountability at NIH are increasingly filled by people who lack the technical knowledge or integrity to make sound decisions about the future of health research in the United States.
Recommendations
Ensure NIH staff are able to maximize the benefit of congressionally approved appropriations. NIH must lift mandates that have impeded the ability of its staff to ensure funding is spent in the best interests of the American taxpayer. NIH, HHS, and OMB should reduce layers of political oversight that undermine peer review standards and drastically slow down processes. NIH should rescind the multiyear funding mandate that reduces the power of the NIH budget. NIH should ensure that all of its operating divisions can individually justify contracts based on needs rather than an arbitrary cap. If NIH, HHS, and OMB fail to address these issues, Congress should enact meaningful guardrails to ensure the Article 1 Branch maintains the power of the purse, as directed by the U.S. Constitution.
Ensure future grant terminations only occur when justified by scientific or ethical concerns, such as study futility, early determinations of efficacy, unexpected participant harm, or investigator misconduct, as noted in Concern 1. The threat of study terminations creates substantial uncertainty that impedes the ability of scientists to conduct their research.
Introduce new policies with clarity, transparency and reasonable implementation time frames. Allow broad scientific input before proclaiming NIH priorities. Adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act and resume best practices of incorporating input from NIH scientists and the scientific community regarding research priorities, established through workshops, working groups, scientific conferences, requests for information (RFIs), and other methods. Thoughtfully examine existing mechanisms and processes before implementing new policies. Introduce new policies to NIH staff before public dissemination. Provide clear and rational guidance and processes to inform NIH staff and the public. Consult scientific experts and individuals with lived experience regarding: a) health disparities research, b) workforce diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, c) COVID-19, long-COVID and immunizations, d) climate change, e) gender and intersex populations, f) foreign collaborations, and g) animal research. Recognize that specialists at NIH and elsewhere can bring their experience, not to discourage, but to enhance the success of, new initiatives.
Develop and restore funding mechanisms that support training to counteract brain drain. NIH must act urgently to counteract the substantial reduction in opportunity for early career scientists. Allow program staff to develop and strengthen funding opportunities to support training of clinical and basic scientists. New programs must accomplish the goals and adequately replace previously successful training programs that were terminated. This will require flexibility in the development of funding opportunities, without arbitrary limitation in the number of opportunities. In addition, Congress must establish clear, meaningful, and binding protections against the disruption of these critical programs in the future.
What you can do
Stay informed!
Read the full report.
Follow 27 UNIHTED here or on bluesky, instagram, linkedin, or facebook for up-to-date content on what’s happening inside NIH.
Look out for the next post in our Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later series on how lost critical expertise is hindering the NIH mission
In case you missed it, find our first, second and third post of the series.
Inform others! Share this post with your colleagues.
Call your members of Congress and urge them to enact protections for NIH, including stopping the discriminatory censorship at NIH and saying no to Russell Vought’s proposed rule on financial federal assistance.
Add your concerns in an official comment on Russell Vought’s proposed rule on financial federal assistance. Read our comment guide on how to comment and learn more about what’s in the rule.
Need more ideas? Check out the 27 UNIHTED Advocacy Menu.
.