Reforming The NIH Is Not Enough, Abolish It
Government science is anathema to an individual rights respecting society.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is once again in the spotlight following the nomination of Jay Bhattacharya as its new director by Donald Trump. Dr. Bhattacharya rose to fame during the Covid-19 pandemic when he co-wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" In it, he argued there was little evidence to support shelter-in-place orders and quarantines. He was also the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, a proposal arguing for an alternative public health approach to dealing with Covid-19 through focused protection of the people most at risk. For this he was criticized and labeled a “fringe scientist” by Francis Collins, the head of the NIH at the time, and many others. Bhattacharya’s views have since been thoroughly vindicated, and, if confirmed, it appears he may be having the last laugh.
The media has speculated that Bhattacharya’s mandate is to return NIH to its core “business.” A recent WSJ article about his nomination concludes “Dr. Bhattacharya’s top charge at the NIH will be returning the agency to its original mission of funding innovation rather than political science masquerading as real science." And in a Free Press article, Joseph Marine, MD, proposes a concrete 10-point agenda that would take the organization in this direction.
The NIH is composed of 27 institutes with a combined annual budget of more than $47 billion divided between intramural research (10-11%; research done by the 27 NIH institutes), extramural research (83-84%; grants to research organizations outside NIH such as private corporations, universities and NGOs) and administration (6%). NIH is the largest single funder of medical research in the U.S., according to some estimates, responsible for 55% of all basic and 32% of all applied medical research.
Returning the NIH to its core business may be Dr. Bhattacharya’s marching orders from Mr. Trump, but should it be? Should the government pick winners and losers in the race to improve health? Is it consistent with an individual rights respecting society to force some people to pay for what others consider essential medical research? More fundamentally, is it consistent with an individual rights respecting society that government meddles with the freedom of thought and action that is the essence of scientific pursuits? What follows is an excerpt from “Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right: A 21st Century Citizen Guide” explaining the proper role of government in science (hint: nada).
“[...] nowhere is freedom of thought and action more important than in science. Allowing men and women to use their minds to formulate hypotheses, test them, and act on the results without being shackled by non-objective laws, regulations, strings attached to government funding, and other political and bureaucratic limitations is an integral part of respecting individual rights. […]
“Many mistakenly believe that government is the ultimate objective arbiter of worthwhile scientific pursuits. The truth is the opposite: government involvement politicizes science as it creates an environment of warring factions with conflicting scientific agendas fighting over limited available resources.
“Government has a tangentially valid interest in science in its role as protector of individual rights, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.) and maintaining the nation’s defense. However, government involvement in financing and conducting science is often based on political, regulatory and bureaucratic preference rather than a market-based return on investment. [...] Government regulations increase the cost of doing science. And uncertainty about the tax, inflation, and regulatory future breeds risk aversion, putting a damper on long-term scientific investments as the financial return is hard to gauge.
“Only in a statist social system is the government involved in funding and conducting science outside its core areas of the military, police, and courts. Under statism, connections and ability to navigate the government grant bureaucracy often takes precedence over the actual science. Scientists with the right connections and abilities frequently secure government funding for projects that would not attract capital in the free market. And their findings, whether objectively proved or not, may result in new laws and regulations if in line with a scientific agenda that is currently in favor in political, regulatory and government science bureaucracy circles. For example, the past few decades have seen significant government support of environmental research biased towards finding evidence of the negative impacts of fossil fuels without considering their enormous positive contributions to society.1 Similarly, scientists promoting certain dietary guidelines based on dubious government funded research have had the ear of bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and at non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA). This has resulted in misguided government involvement with damaging impacts. The past few decades’ unscientific low-fat diet craze is one such example2, as are the government promoted food pyramid3. Similar outcomes are found in most scientific areas where government is involved.
“Obviously, thousands of brilliant scientists are working on government funded projects in a welfare statist society like the U.S. But the dependence on the government as, in many cases, the only source of funding, presents a challenge to the integrity even among the best of them. Being passionately vested in their field, they often travel down the slippery slope of tailoring their grant requests to what they think the National Institute for Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), regulatory agencies funding research, etc., are likely to approve. Adding insult to injury, prominent scientific journals such as Science and Nature mostly publish articles that fit the dominant narrative4. This slow, corrupting influence is one of the most damaging aspects of government involvement in the sciences in a statist society.
“In a capitalist social system, funding for science is almost exclusively the role of private for-profit and philanthropic entities: large corporations, venture-capitalists, private universities and other research institutions, wealthy individuals with an interest in science, and so on. Some scientific endeavors get more funding than in a statist society, others get less, and yet others are eliminated depending on what is valued in the science marketplace. As mentioned earlier, government may still play a legitimate role in coordinating and funding military research as the military is a valid responsibility of a capitalist limited government. But in a capitalist society, much of what today is managed directly by Department of Defense agencies5 such as the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), is the responsibility of private research organizations and corporations.
“What if the marketplace does not value research in certain critical areas where the return on investment is not imminent? A capitalist social system encourages and rewards long-range thinking, so this is unlikely. And many areas where the financial return may be elusive will still be financed by individuals and organizations who put a philanthropic, non-monetary value on the research. Remember that in a capitalist social system, continuous productivity and profit increases—and reduction of taxes and regulations—will make available vastly larger sums of money for basic and applied research than is the case in today’s welfare statist society dominated by government funded research.
“Furthermore, capitalism fosters a fail-fast attitude, meaning that scientific endeavors going down a blind alley are less likely to continue to be funded, leading to a more efficient allocation of capital over time. Today, many government-funded projects are not subject to similar rigorous checks and balances.
“In a capitalist social system, scientists are more likely to shop around for funding instead of relying on the government as the single source. Many with attractive research propositions will see private funding entities (corporations, venture capitalists, universities, other non-governmental organizations, philanthropists, etc.) competing for their favors, something that is not nearly as frequent today as it is under capitalism. As a consequence, the temptation to let the need for funding compromise your integrity is reduced.
“Finally, a comment on public trust in science. Under statism, with science being subject to political and bureaucratic pull and pressure, the public gradually loses trust. For example, the public trust in science took a hit during the COVID-19 pandemic and currently stands at a multi-decade low6. Government entities such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued statements about the origins of the virus (wet markets) that later proved to be politically and bureaucratically motivated. And they suppressed or condemned contrary hypotheses (lab leak) that, while in the end may prove to be wrong, certainly merited more consideration. The CDC and NIH also published recommendations about masking, social distancing, and vaccination that weren’t fully based in objective science. For example, the agencies at one point incorrectly stated that vaccination made you non-contagious if contracting the virus. And they recommended mandatory vaccination and school closures for young children who were at little or no risk of getting seriously ill. They strongly encouraged states and local communities to implement draconian measures that went well beyond what is the proper role of government in a pandemic. [...] As a result, large parts of the public understandably reacted with skepticism and distrust of any subsequent guidelines and other information issued by the agencies, whether justified or not.
“Capitalism doesn’t guarantee that science always gets it right. But the science marketplace consisting of scientists, entities involved in scientific research, financial backers, and consumer and industry watchdogs ensures a much healthier system of checks and balances than under statism. And when some scientist or organization takes a wrong turn, corrective action is much swifter than in a statist society dominated by government funded, politicized science. As a result, public trust in science tends to be much greater under capitalism.”
===
Government science is anathema to an individual rights respecting society. I wish Dr. Bhattacharya—and nominees to other government agencies with a science agenda—success in their new roles. Returning the NIH in particular, and government involvement in science in general, to its original mission may be a worthwhile bandaid. But the rest of us should demand of our congressional representatives to cure the underlying disease by abolishing—in an orderly fashion—not only the NIH, but government involvement in science altogether. Nothing less is consistent with a truly free society.
Eisenhower’s January 17, 1961 farewell address has become firmly recorded in the minds of the electorate. This is because of his famous conception, “The Military Industrial Complex.” Eisenhower was profoundly prescient in his caution and his admonition has become widely recognized as “spot-on.”
A few sentences later in the same farewell address he further admonishes, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
Unlike his MIC, old Dwight’s “AIC” (Academic Industrial Complex) has gone unacknowledged though certainly its growth and “metastasis” has remained "quietly" of little note. That is because to cite its existence and the growth of its strangling tentacles, it offends the “political sensibilities” of those who oppose the founding ideals of America.
The opponents of America’s founding ideals have built BOTH Industrial Complexes, though for different justifications. It would seem that, for what is perhaps the first time since their decades -long metastasizing, both are about to receive “diagnosis” and “treatment.” I have a fundamental recommendation in dealing with these malignancies.
Skip “radiation,” together with whatever “hormone treatment” thought useful, and any “Chemotherapy” – however politically or administratively powerful. Conversely, institute complete agency/department/regulatory mastectomies on the AIC while administering appropriate doses of whatever “works” on the MIC. Why? Human nature and another conception coined by a relatively obscure “academic,” one George Stigler in the 1970’s. A conception he termed, “regulatory capture.”
No less emergent than the MIC or AIC, regulator capture has become as certain as government corruption. Therefore, the possibility of “capture” must be eliminated by “excise!”
Good reminder, Anders!
Dave
Hi Anders,
Great article. I worked for the federal government for 31 years as a research scientist. In my field, electromagnetics, we had sponsors both from private industry and from government agencies. In fact at one point, I worked for the Telecommunications Industry, and used science to take down the government's arguments, and then was funded by those same government agencies to make the science better. I am a purist at heart and seek the truth, we were not swayed one way or the other to modify our findings to fit the agenda.
There are many good scientists in the government that want to work purely on the science, but I also noticed that during the "Covid pandemic", many of these same scientists failed to do the actual research necessary to find out that this virus, like Professor Battacharya, was no more lethal than the flu. Being a scientist that wanted to know the truth, I dug into the statistics and came to my own conclusions. I because they were about to enforce the vaccine mandates and disagreed vehemently with my boss about the mandate. He was a go-along to get-along type of supervisor. I was very disappointed in the scientists.
There are also those scientists who did not put their full heart into the study of science and just took the system for a ride.
I thought that my duty was to the truth and I conducted my research without bias, but I do understand that we all have biases. That is why when we write a paper it goes through the review process, although this has also now become corrupt. That is also why other scientists took my findings and tried to duplicate them. There were disagreements in our team and with our sponsors sometimes about the best way to interpret the data or to decide which experiments were to be conducted next to get to the truth.
I enjoyed my time in the sciences, but when it became too political, I left.
Chriss Hammerschmidt
LPR Class of 2024