Federal agencies, particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are continuing to grant funds to left-leaning activists and support questionable “scientific” research that many believe is detrimental to conservatives and the American populace overall. Presently, there are no intentions to halt these practices.
On the other hand, due to perceived leftist bias within the NIH, there seems to be a neglect of research areas that could genuinely aid the American people.
During my tenure as a senior advisor at NIH, I came across several ongoing grants, for example:
“Studying natural anti-racist healing to protect transitional telomeres and health equity with BIPOC” involves taking minority teens to parks to lessen telomere erosion, which refers to the age-related shortening of DNA sequences. This project received $3.8 million over five years, and its results are not publicly available—probably not a shock given its outlandish premise.
“An Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults.” This seems rooted in a flawed leftist concept known as “microaggressions.” For instance, one example describes “microaggressions” as white individuals denying they are racist, which can’t really be measured accurately. It’s been popularized by left-wing thought but lacks any substantial investigation into the intent of the supposed offenders.
“The influence of social media, social networks, and misinformation on vaccine acceptance among Black and Latino Americans.” This research comes from an activist who bizarrely labeled the phrase ‘Coronavirus is genetically modified’ as ‘misinformation.’ It’s essentially built on President Trump’s tweets concerning his recovery from the virus.
The study asserted that following those tweets, people perceived the coronavirus as less “severe.” I mean, thinking back to the time when the Democrats were in charge, people seem to share the same level of anxiety about COVID-19 that they did back then, even spreading misleading information regarding school closures and vaccine effectiveness. The NIH funded this project and granted an additional $651,586.
As someone who studies the negative impacts of ideological bias in academic research, I see how entrenched political ideologies undermine our methods of understanding. These influences make it challenging to differentiate between factual science and political agendas, which poses a real threat to our grasp of reality and scientific integrity.
In March, I reached out to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharyya, proposing a way to establish an unbiased framework to remove ideological bias from NIH-funded projects.
Jay appeared to agree with my perspective, and after a phone conversation, I began my role as senior advisor in the Office of the Director at NIH in May.
However, after some initial back-and-forth, I found myself without any further communication from him. For months, I diligently reviewed a multitude of grant applications, cleared a thorough federal background check, and regularly contacted Jay with questions. But it felt like I was being ignored.
Oddly, it seems my recent messages were deleted while older ones were retained. I sent him a comprehensive overview of my framework and inquired whether I should proceed with it, questioning if I had erred in some way considering his silence. Yet, I received no reply.
By September, layoffs were initiated among contractors at NIH, including myself, without any clarification.
This entire experience was honestly one of the most bewildering and unprofessional of my career.
Ultimately, NIH will persist in funding ideologically motivated and scientifically unsound research while disregarding crucial topics, primarily due to left-leaning biases. We have an opportunity for significant reforms, but without a structured effort to remove ideology from science, that chance would likely slip away.
In recent developments, DOGE reduced some funding after reviewing DEI terms, which is a step forward, though it missed many ideological projects rooted in terms like “microaggressions,” “systemic racism,” and “intersectionality.” Left-leaning scholars are already adjusting their language to adapt to scrutiny.
A systematic, objective framework to combat biases is essential for these changes. Such a framework should be legally robust and convincing enough for insiders who can help define “ideology” and delineate it from scientific research.
Thus far, I’ve pinpointed four types of bias:
- ideological studies
- fraudulent research
- ideological denial of science/suppression of data
- the overlooked research that would emerge without leftist bias.
The absence of research at NIH may cause the most damage. Notably, NIH doesn’t fund research focusing on American males, particularly white and Native American men, who face considerable suicide rates. Meanwhile, they’re financing projects like “Self-management of hypertension among refugees living in San Diego.”
Moreover, they seem indifferent to the health benefits associated with religious practices and prayer—an area where Islamic countries appear to be leading. These significant gaps indicate a disregard for the American populace and reflect an ideologically hostile stance.
