Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, defended his agency’s plan Friday to move more research funding to the heartlands — a move many fear could lead to fewer dollars for Massachusetts and undermine one of the state’s major economic engines.
“I want Iowa, Nebraska scientists, scientists at every institution, to be able to compete on the same level playing fields with the brilliant scientists here in Massachusetts,” he said in an exclusive interview with the Globe.
His remarks came during a visit to Massachusetts, the state with the most NIH funding per capita, whose research ecosystem has been ravaged by layoffs and funding cuts. His meetings with scientists, biomedical executives, and doctors were largely respectful, but sometimes contentious.
Under Bhattacharya’s leadership, the NIH has said it will prioritize “geographic balance” in funding decisions, and Bhattacharya has said he wants the nation’s research infrastructure to extend to places that better reflect the country’s health problems, such as Alabama.
He denied that he wanted to move research grant funding away from states like Massachusetts.
“I don’t see a future with Massachusetts not having support,” he said. “But I would love to see that kind of success spread all across the country.”
Bhattacharya took issue with assertions that NIH funding cuts were devastating Massachusetts’ scientific community.
“The total amount that Congress allocated last year was spent, every single dollar of it,” he said after a morning event at the University of Massachusetts Club on Beacon Hill. “And next year, the proposal is to spend the same amount or 1 percent more.”
But Bhattacharya, who spent much of his career as a researcher at Stanford University in California, acknowledged that under his leadership, the NIH has funded fewer research projects overall, causing anxiety and frustration.
At an afternoon conversation with over 100 researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Marc Larochelle, a Boston Medical Center general internist and clinical investigator specializing in addiction medicine, posed a question to Bhattacharya that struck a nerve.
“The existential threat I’m worried about right now is the next generation,” he said, according to a recording of the meeting shared with the Globe. One of his studies is paused, he said, and it’s unclear if the other will be renewed.
“Institutions are frozen,” he said. “People don’t want to hire new faculty. We’re not getting trainees in. So how are we going to avoid depleting the next generation of researchers, and what can NIH do now to make sure our trainees and our junior faculty are being supported?”
The room erupted in applause.
In response, Bhattacharya said the NIH will continue investing in young scientists.
Bhattacharya was invited to Massachusetts by US Representatives Jake Auchincloss and Richard Neal. The congressmen were among 11 members of Massachusetts’s all-Democratic congressional delegation who in September implored the Trump administration to speed the release of more than $1 billion in frozen medical research funding, calling it a “matter of life and death.”
Neal said he wanted to ensure that Bhattacharya understood the vital contributions Massachusetts delivers to the world, from biotech and medical breakthroughs to venture capital funding.
“I told him that I understand you want to expand some of the grant writing opportunities that NIH has, but we want to make sure they aren’t political decisions, but policy-driven decisions,” said Neal, who described the morning’s closed-door meeting as “contentious.”
Auchincloss said Massachusetts scientists want to convey that NIH funding should be a “scientific meritocracy.”
“This wasn’t about Massachusetts saying Massachusetts wants more money,” said Auchincloss, whose office touted the NIH director’s visit as his first to a congressional Democrat’s district. “This was about great scientists representing great scientific institutions saying we want the best science to win.”
Bhattacharya also toured the Broad Institute in Cambridge, a research center that received $240 million last year in federal funds, mostly from NIH.
Edward Coppinger, head of government affairs for MassBio, a trade group for the life sciences industry, said he and others in the morning session were disappointed by Bhattacharya’s assertion that the NIH’s overall funding had stayed the same, given numerous reports that clinical trials were being canceled and the number of research projects being funded has declined.
“It was smoke and mirrors,” he said.
Coppinger said Bhattacharya didn’t seem to address concerns raised by some that morale is “incredibly low” among scientists.
“We have people on the verge of breakthroughs with clinical trials that aren’t getting funded,” Coppinger said. “It was a difficult pill for a lot of the people in the room to swallow, that they don’t know what the future holds.”
UMass Chan Medical School Chancellor Dr. Michael Collins attended the morning meeting to communicate a dire situation. The medical school typically receives around $300 million in NIH funding annually. This year, NIH changes mean that figure will likely fall under $220 million.
Collins shared with Bhattacharya the stories of two UMass Chan researchers — one accomplished, the other just starting out. Neither received funding this year.
“I was pointing out to the director there is great concern among scientists,” Collins said, adding: “If the practice continues, we could lose a whole generation of scientists. And it will take us a couple of generations to build it back.”
No institution was hit harder than Harvard University by the funding interruption. The nation’s oldest and richest university lost nearly $3 billion in grants because the Trump administration alleged it tolerated antisemitism on campus. Most of the funding was restored by October, after a federal judge ruled that the cuts were illegal.
But there’s widespread concern that the NIH’s moves will redirect future NIH funding away from big East Coast and West Coast academic centers, which will wreak scientific and economic havoc on Massachusetts. The NIH is the world’s largest sponsor of medical research.
The state’s economy revolves around its educational and medical institutions. By one analysis, every dollar lost in NIH grants translates into two dollars lost in economic output in Massachusetts.
NIH records show Bhattacharya himself received millions of dollars through more than 30 NIH grants since 2001 to conduct scientific research.
At a Senate hearing in June, Bhattacharya said he wants to make the NIH more competitive and more focused on research that yields results. A new approach to federal funding, he said, had the potential to spread federal money more evenly across the United States. He estimated that 60 to 65 percent of the NIH budget goes to just 20 universities.
Bhattacharya gained national political prominence during the pandemic, when he criticized lockdowns and mask mandates.
Since becoming NIH director, Bhattacharya has frequently trumpeted the phrase “Make America Healthy Again,” echoing Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He has said he personally does not see a link between vaccines and autism but that more research may be needed because there is “tremendous distrust” in medicine and science after COVID.
He has also echoed President Trump’s condemnations of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, policies, although, as a researcher, Bhattacharya published at least five papers on racial health disparities, according to a STAT article.
On Friday, Bhattacharya told the Globe he remains committed to funding research on health disparities — but he said studies should aim to improve the health of minorities and not be “ideologically focused.”
Other researchers have wondered whether Bhattacharya, who has spent his career in science, is troubled by the upheaval the NIH’s massive changes are having on friends and fellow scientists. He told the Globe he is not going after friends — he is attacking chronic diseases that plague Americans.
“I have no problem sleeping because I can see that the investments we’ve made, which have led to tremendous advances in biological knowledge, have not translated over to improving the life expectancy of Americans since 2010,” he said. “What I see myself doing is helping the institutions of this country refocus on ... excellent science that makes people’s lives better.”
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jonathan.saltzman@globe.com. Kay Lazar can be reached at kay.lazar@globe.com Follow her @GlobeKayLazar. Chris Serres can be reached at chris.serres@globe.com. Follow him @ChrisSerres. Jessica Bartlett can be reached at jessica.bartlett@globe.com. Follow her @ByJessBartlett.