Diabetes Research Conference Highlights NIH Changes
NEW ORLEANS — At a recent national meeting for diabetes researchers, a senior adviser to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leader began his speech by fervently supporting the Make America Healthy Again movement. Following that, during a fireside chat, he fielded enthusiastic responses while addressing the significant funding cuts affecting the country’s biomedical research sector.
“I could have written the MAHA agenda,” said Richard Woychik, who works closely under NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, reflecting on his initial exposure to the policy endorsed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last October.
He elaborated, stating the MAHA strategy taps into innovation across NIH and aims to improve understanding and prevention of diabetes. “Diabetes stands out as a prime example of why a unified NIH approach to chronic diseases is essential,” he noted.
Woychik, who previously directed the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, gave the keynote address for the American Diabetes Association’s 2026 scientific sessions after Bhattacharya had to cancel due to a last-minute meeting with President Trump. Woychik emphasized his alignment with Bhattacharya’s goals for NIH.
During the follow-up discussion, Rita Kalyani, the ADA’s chief scientific officer, quoted Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Baldwin had described in a May Senate hearing the “systematic dismantling” of longstanding research programs, which many in attendance seemed to echo, as evidenced by the applause that followed Kalyani’s remarks.
In response to such concerns, Woychik pointed to Congress as a primary culprit behind the cuts affecting grants, positions, and careers. He acknowledged the shifting landscape, explaining, “We have a new administration. We have new NIH leadership. Jay has distinct priorities, and they differ from his predecessors’.”
Unbeknownst to attendees, earlier that day, local police had escorted five ADA registrants out of the convention center for distributing an editorial from the ADA’s Diabetes Care journal that criticized the Trump administration’s impact on U.S. biomedical research. One of those removed was Steven Kahn, the lead author of the editorial titled “Misguided brushes of a pen continue to dismantle and destroy biomedical research in the United States: We can no longer afford complacency and fear. We must all act now!”
The ADA later commented that these individuals were escorted out due to behaviors inconsistent with the event’s code of conduct.
Woychik didn’t shy away from contentious subjects such as fluoride in drinking water, autism, and vaccines. He lauded efforts aimed at uncovering root causes of chronic diseases, mentioning the “exposome” which includes environmental and social factors alongside genetics.
Regarding autism, he stated, “There’s a substantial genetic component, but environmental influences are increasingly acknowledged.” He refrained from connecting autism and vaccines—a link long dismissed—but did call for further investigation.
“The MAHA Agenda discusses vaccines in detail. We’re not debating their merits; our goal is to better understand biological and molecular responses stemming from vaccine treatments,” he said.
Discussing fluoride, Woychik raised concerns about scientific reproducibility. He shared insights he gathered while leading the NIEHS on fluoride’s possible effects on children’s mental health, noting a current review of previous studies.
“There’s a wide range of findings, and assessing whether certain fluoride levels pose health risks has been challenging,” he explained.
He also touched on research practices, indicating that Bhattacharya aims to enhance rigor in experimental designs before they commence. “Our implementation of the MAHA agenda focuses on establishing gold standard science and identifying the underlying causes of diabetes,” he added.
During the Q&A session, Kalyani pressed Woychik about peer review processes being overshadowed by political appointees and concerns about changes to high-level oversight within NIH. Her points received enthusiastic applause from the audience.
“This administration’s proposed rule challenges the foundation of scientific inquiry in our country, which has led to numerous advancements,” she remarked. “Should our community be worried? If not, why, and how will NIH adapt?”
Woychik replied, “I can’t dictate actions, but public comment is welcome. Everyone interested can provide feedback.”
In closing, Woychik returned to the theme of change. “I’m optimistic about our direction. Sure, there are hurdles, but change is part of progress,” he said.
