As Jay Bhattacharya temporarily takes the lead at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where Bhattacharya is the permanent director, fear his attention will falter even more as critical issues at the research agency go unaddressed.
Bhattacharya first rose to prominence as a fierce opponent to Covid mitigations and has become a close ally of Robert F Kennedy Jr, the health secretary. Under their oversight, NIH has sharply curtailed the funds it awards to researchers, especially studies involving race and gender, while some employees faced hiring freezes and increased health expenses at the agency.
At a meeting in January, Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher at the NIH and a steward of NIH Fellows United-UAW 2750, stood up to ask about a dramatic rise in the costs of health insurance for early-career scientists employed by NIH. With a new baby on the way, he’s worried about making ends meet with his federal job.
“What can we do to actually support early-career researchers like myself who are struggling to get by?” he asked, while other employees applauded.
Bhattacharya, who has said multiple times that clearing the path for more innovative early-career researchers is a priority for him, didn’t seem aware of the issue.
“Honestly, I don’t know the answer to that question,” Bhattacharya said. “Come talk to me, let’s figure it out,” he added, asking Morgan to send an email to schedule a meeting.
But that meeting still hasn’t happened. Morgan says when he emailed to set a time, the director was too busy to meet with him.
“If he’s already too busy to be able to address the real issues that scientists are facing at the NIH, then how is he now going to have the time to run things with this extra role?” Morgan said, speaking to the Guardian in a personal capacity and as a union steward.
“There are a lot of things that we need to get done now,” Morgan said. “We just don’t know what to do now, because he has to make a decision, and it just seems he’s too busy to actually do anything about it.”
The job of NIH director is an enormous one, overseeing a $48.7bn portfolio as one of the premiere research institutions in the world.
“The NIH director position has always been a full-time job for everyone who’s held that position, and no one has treated it as a part-time job before,” said Shiv Prasad, a scientific review officer at NIH who spoke in his personal capacity.
Cutting back on a crucial step for researchers early in their careers is “a crisis for the pipeline” of science in America, Prasad said. “It speaks to the future of science – if we can’t keep very bright and motivated young people in science, it’s bad for science, it’s bad for the country.”
Yet the success rate for early-career scientists applying for R01 grants dropped from 26.1% in fiscal year 2024 to 18.9% in fiscal year 2025, according to the NIH data. Grants only became marginally more competitive, with a 1% increase in applications in the same time period.
The absence of institute and center directors is another factor worrying employees. Of NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, more than half – 16 – are being led by acting directors, a rate higher than Prasad has seen in his three decades at NIH. Permanent directors set research priorities, carry out the missions of their institution, and award funds that Congress has appropriated.
“I think the concern here is that the director search is not following the normal processes,” Prasad said.
And he voiced concerns that Bhattacharya spends much of his time on speaking engagements.
“It’s unfortunate that he spends a significant amount of time either on rightwing podcasts or addressing rightwing conventions, and maybe finds time for NIH in between those appearances,” Prasad said.
Over the past year, Bhattacharya has put a leadership team in place at NIH, he said last week on the podcast Why Should I Trust You? He said: “I worked very hard this last year at the NIH to place a leadership team and a set of ideas and priorities … and I’m working to stay in touch with them continuously.”
Matthew Memoli, the principal deputy director of NIH, is widely regarded to be running the agency, according to other employees and press reports.
“Even if he’s running things that’s not as effective as actually having the NIH director there doing the job,” Morgan said. “You can do things around the edges, but we need a director.”
Delegating work to deputies makes it hard to know who is responsible for which decisions, said Anne Joseph O’Connell, professor at Stanford Law School.
A Senate-confirmed director of one agency may take on the leadership of a second or even third agency temporarily, O’Connell said.
“I should note that what may be legal is not necessarily desirable,” she said. “Even at a second job, we should worry about the harms to governance. It is hard to do two full-time jobs.”
Bhattacharya is the fourth leader of the CDC in a year. He may serve as acting director until 25 March, which is 210 days since the last confirmed director left the job.
“The director has empowered the NIH leadership team to ensure the agency’s priorities continue moving forward until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent CDC director,” said Emily G Hilliard, HHS press secretary. “The CDC leadership team is working closely with Dr Bhattacharya during this acting period to continue protecting and serving the American people.”
Prasad emphasized that “the CDC also needs a person there full-time”.
“My CDC colleagues also need to have someone in that job putting his or her full attention into the needs of the CDC. And I think they are also going to suffer because their director will also be part-time,” he said.
In the past, Bhattacharya was able to address some concerns when he was alerted to them, such as easing the hiring freeze on postdoctoral researchers.
“He indeed was able to at least help put some attention to the problem of being able to hire postdocs and while there’s still a few restrictions on that, we can hire postdocs now,” Morgan said, before adding:
“Part of doing the job is being there and meeting with people and using the influence that you have as NIH director to make sure that things work smoothly. And if you’re not there, able to do that, then things are going to break. Things that are supposed to be happening won’t happen.”
