The War on Science Has Begun

Freezing grant panels, hiring, travel, and press releases is just the beginning

Dear Readers,

One week into this new administration, the news cycle is already overwhelming. While I aim to minimize political commentary in this newsletter, it’s vital we stay informed about decisions impacting science and medicine. Last October, I wrote about the election’s stakes for biomedical research and public health. We are now starting to see those consequences materialize instead of just discussing hypotheticals. We’re all familiar with concerns about the specific people tapped to head the HHS, CDC, NIH, and other organizations. What is newer are all of the administrative policy changes that don’t depend on Senate confirmation and are already taking effect.

Let’s dig in…

—Eric

Withdrawal from the World Health Organization

Among the most significant early actions is the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), which could have profound global implications. This was not unexpected as both Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., along with many other conservatives, have continually attacked the WHO since the COVID-19 pandemic. While there are some legitimate criticisms of the WHO—like any large organization—it undoubtedly does a lot of good around the world. They spearheaded the global responses around the world that led to the eradication of smallpox, near eradication of polio, and provided substantial support to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa and other developing regions. For another example, WHO-coordinated efforts facilitated the global response to SARS-CoV-2, enabling vaccine developers to access crucial genome sequences in record time.

Beyond criticisms of their COVID-19 response, the administration’s other primary concern is the United States’ substantial financial contribution to the WHO. As

Katelyn Jetelina

at

Your Local Epidemiologist

writes, the US is the largest WHO donor by far, contributing almost 20% of their budget. Where does this money go? YLE provides this helpful infographic:

So as you can see, pulling out will be a huge blow to their already small budget of ~$6.5 billion, and jeopardizes public health across the globe, which ultimately puts us at risk; as SARS-CoV-2 painfully showed us, viruses and other pathogens don’t respect national boundaries. For more, read the rest of Dr. Jetelina’s nuanced post on the implications of this withdrawal:

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

Public Communications Going Dark

Yesterday, multiple news outlets covered a memo ordering federal health agencies to pause all public communications:

“HHS has issued a pause on mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health," Benjamin N. Haynes, director of media relations for the CDC's Office of Communications, said in a statement. “This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization. There are exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical, but they will be made on a case-by-case basis.”

This move is being described as temporary and lasting through February 1st, although federal employees expressed uncertainty over whether the order would extend after that deadline and what would be covered. While many incoming administrations change guidance on policies and communication when they take office, a complete freeze is unusual.

Despite assurances that emergency communications would continue, veterinary professionals have already reported critical H5N1 outbreak information being withheld:

The AABP is the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, the largest organization of beef and dairy vets

The CDC and USDA websites for news on H5N1 also have not been updated since January 17th (the Friday before the new administration took office). This lack of transparency jeopardizes timely responses to emergent threats like avian influenza.

Hopefully, this pause is truly temporary and they resume data collection and sharing, but I am concerned the HHS is soon to be led by RFK Jr, who told an anti-vaccine advocacy group:

“I’m gonna say to NIH scientists, ‘God bless you all. Thank you for public service. We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years.’”

Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy, infectious diseases do not reciprocate such breaks.

Freezing Hiring, Travel, and Grant Reviews

A report yesterday in Science detailed further changes impacting the NIH, CDC, FDA, and other organizations. First of all, like the rest of the federal government, they are under a hiring freeze. This will disrupt hiring not only regular personnel, but also the graduate students and post-doctoral fellows who are critical to research. In addition, Trump signed an executive order ending any form of remote or hybrid work. More than half of federal employees already work 100% on-site, but this will undoubtedly cause attrition and retention problems in the HHS and elsewhere (indeed, part of the point was likely headcount reduction). The administration is also re-implementing a policy called Schedule F that strips protections for federal workers and makes it easier to fire those deemed insufficiently loyal in a transparent effort to pressure apolitical analysts and researchers to toe the party line.

More bizarre, the HHS issued a blanket travel ban for all employees. This means that scientists who were scheduled to present their work at conferences must cancel their trips. According to one memo: “Future travel requests for any reason are not authorized and should not be approved.” This move seems almost specifically engineered to hurt morale and slow dissemination of new knowledge across the country and world.

Finally, and most critically, is the news that NIH grant review panels are being cancelled:

“Several meetings of National Institutes of Health study sections, which review applications for fellowships and grants, were canceled without being rescheduled, according to agency notices reviewed by STAT. A Feb. 20-21 meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, a panel that advises the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services on vaccine policy, was also canceled. So was a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria that was scheduled for Jan. 28 and 29.

[…]

“Peer review via study sections is required by law in order for the NIH to disburse most of the $40 billion annual extramural budget,” said Norman E. Sharpless, a former director of the National Cancer Institute, part of the NIH. “If study sections and advisory council meetings are postponed for more than even a brief period, this will likely lead to interruptions in grant funding, which is bad for U.S. biomedical research.”

What Now?

Unfortunately, these massive changes happening in just the first few days show how fragile our government is, and how much depends on executive guidance rather than on legislation passed by Congress. We still don’t know the full impact of these agency changes, what additional regulation and policy shifts may be coming, and which appointees will be confirmed in the Senate. There will surely be more attempts to politicize science and medicine in this country over the next 4+ years. And at a time when H5N1, mpox, and other infectious diseases are simmering, it’s certainly not ideal to shun the WHO and cripple the CDC and NIH. Overall, I’m quite worried this will set back biomedical research in the US and abroad, leaving us unprepared for the future.

Facing these blatant attempts to suppress and undermine our federal research and public health institutions, we are essentially flying blind into stormy weather. In this critical period, it’s imperative for academic institutions, non-profits, and private organizations to fill the gaps left by federal agencies. As individuals, we must stay informed, advocate for transparency, and speak out against measures that harm public health and scientific progress.