Welcome Dr. Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health, now known as the NIH, to this subcommittee. Dr. Bhattacharya was confirmed as the NIH director almost a year ago and since that time has been very busy implementing the administration's priorities to advance NIH's mission of conducting basic research and applying these discoveries to improve human health. Dr. Bhattacharya took the helm of NIH at a very interesting inflection point. NIH-funded research has made the United States the world leader in biomedical scientific research, resulting in breakthrough cures, treatments, and advancements that have saved or improved countless American lives. Unfortunately, the American public's trust in science and scientific institutions such as NIH was eroded significantly during the COVID pandemic. Restoring this trust has been a key goal under this administration and under Director Bhattacharya. Part of this is ensuring that Americans see the tangible benefits of the federal investments in NIH-supported research rather than research findings that just sit on a shelf. I look forward to hearing more about NIH efforts to ensure that NIH-funded research leads to measurable improvements in Americans' health. Science can be incremental, but in keeping with NIH's distinguished record, our research investments must ultimately translate to better health outcomes such as new treatments, therapies, and cures. Another part of restoring trust is establishing trust in the research itself, so it is encouraging that NIH has been exploring ways to encourage the scientific community to validate or replicate scientific findings. In line with the administration's goal of making America healthy again, NIH has renewed its focus on addressing chronic illnesses that affect Americans. We all know someone affected by heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or Alzheimer's. These diseases are costly for our health system and take a toll on individuals and families. Increasing our understanding of these illnesses and advancing new treatments, preventive medicines, and cures will have a profound effect on every American. As stewards of the tax dollar, we have the responsibility to ensure NIH funding supports rigorous science that produces meaningful research. In the FY26 appropriations, Congress increased the NIH budget by $415 million, including important areas such as cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. We look forward to hearing from you, Dr. Bhattacharya, and working with NIH as it implements this funding in accordance with congressional intent. Dr. Bhattacharya, I look forward to continuing to work with you personally on how we can productively advance our shared priorities in NIH investments that will lead to better health outcomes for all Americans. At this point, I'd like to yield to the ranking member, the gentle lady from Connecticut, for her opening remarks.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and happy St. Patrick's Day to everyone. I think I've done my part in green today. I wore everything in my closet that was green. So have a lovely St. Patrick's Day. Well, I should have done the hair. That's what they said. I marched in the St. Patrick's Day parade in New Haven, Connecticut, which was unbelievable - thousands and thousands of people. I want to welcome you, Dr. Bhattacharya, to your first House Appropriation Subcommittee hearing. I know you've testified before the Senate in the past. We appreciate you taking the time to be here and answer our questions. I'm extraordinarily proud of the work this committee accomplished earlier this year when we passed the full Labor-HHS and Education funding bill for fiscal 2026. We came together on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and Republicans, and forged an agreement that passed with an overwhelming majority in both chambers. In that bill, we provided $48.7 billion for the NIH, an increase of $415 million above 2025. That includes $128 million more for cancer research, redoubling our efforts to treat, prevent, and ultimately cure a class of diseases that claim the lives of over 1,600 Americans every day and which nearly took my life as well. I am a survivor of ovarian cancer, diagnosed at the beginning of my career in Washington. I am alive today thanks to the grace of God, early detection, and the kind of advanced biomedical research that this funding makes possible. Additionally, we secured a $100 million increase for research on Alzheimer's and related dementias, a $15 million increase for ALS research, and an additional $30 million for the Office of Research on Women's Health, a 40% increase. While Congress came to an agreement on our priorities, there have been challenges. Over the last year, the Trump administration and Secretary Kennedy terminated hundreds of research grants simply because they related to racial health disparities, gender minorities, or vaccine research. They seem to view these topics as dirty words and have sought to withdraw funding not because of the actual impact of the research but because of their own ideology. This research is a public good and must not be manipulated as a political weapon. They fired thousands of NIH personnel, decimating our research capacity, interrupting, stalling, or derailing crucial research into cures and treatments. They shook down universities, freezing billions of dollars in life-saving research projects to extract ideological concessions. Additionally, this administration has sought to reshape grant making by frontloading payment for multi-year research grants, resulting in 2,000 fewer grants in 2025. If this continues, the number of new research grants in 2026 and 2027 will continue to be thousands below historical levels. Despite the $415 million increase, the drop in new research grants dramatically reduces the success rate for researchers. Across NIH, the success rate fell from 18.5% in 2024 to 13% in 2025, a drop of 30%. At the National Cancer Institute, less than 10% of research grant applications were funded in 2025. This environment will force young scientists to abandon careers in research or move abroad. We can't allow those great minds to go elsewhere. We need that work done here. In my district, Yale University has 8% fewer students pursuing postdoctoral research. This is a reflection of the shrinking number of students choosing this line of work, compounded by the university's decision to admit fewer graduate students. It's a vicious circle. Even as this administration has overhauled grant-making, they have pushed out more than a dozen NIH institute and center directors, the very people responsible for implementing changes, removing qualified career officials and replacing them with acting directors. As we sit here today, there are 16 acting directors, meaning more than half of the institutes are led by an acting director, with a combined annual budget of nearly $24 billion. This is another example of the chaos and disarray from the Trump administration and Secretary Kennedy. NIH grant funding for fiscal year 2026 has dwindled to a trickle, with awards at a historic low. Researchers across the country report a marked slowdown. I understand that OMB finally approved NIH's apportionments last night. That is good news, but it's disconcerting that it took a congressional oversight hearing to prompt OMB to do what it should have done weeks ago. We are nearly halfway through the fiscal year and NIH's grant making is well behind schedule. I'm asking you here today, Dr. Bhattacharya, to commit to accelerating that path. I know where your heart is on grant making at NIH. You are a researcher, a scientist. You understand the value. Please reassure this committee that NIH grants will be awarded on scientific merit and not political ideology. And now, Dr. Bhattacharya, I recognize you are here today in your role as director of NIH, but you also serve as acting director of CDC. I don't believe it's possible to do both jobs at the same time. NIH and CDC are too important for part-time leadership. CDC is essential to the health of our communities - childhood immunization, food safety, chronic disease prevention. CDC has been hollowed out by Secretary Kennedy. He fired the last CDC director because she refused to rubber-stamp his ideological anti-vaccine agenda, and placed hundreds of CDC personnel on administrative leave, including staff working on tobacco prevention and public health programs for individuals with disabilities. I applaud the ruling by the court yesterday that there is no authority to do what has been done and that we can turn it around. I do not doubt your work ethic or what you believe in. You are working overtime every single day. But I think you know as we do that CDC needs a permanent director whose sole priority is to restore the agency to being part of the crown jewels of research and medicine in this nation. That applies to NIH, CDC, and FDA. Thank you for what you do for public health, your work now and your past work as a scientist and researcher. We'll have questions as we get into the hearing. Thank you for being here, and thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this panel.
Thank you, madam ranking member. Dr. Bhattacharya, we look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. I've had the chance to meet with most of you. If I haven't, let's get together. I want to thank you all for your continued support for biomedical research. NIH's mission is straightforward: to turn scientific discovery into better health outcomes for the American people. Over the past year, NIH has capitalized on past investments and discoveries leading to concrete advances. I'll spend a couple minutes talking about some of those big advances. In 2019, President Trump announced the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, predicting we could essentially eliminate HIV from this country by 2030. I was skeptical about the timeline, but over the last year or two, decades of HIV investments in basic sciences laid the groundwork for developing lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral agent. A single injection lasts 6 to 12 months and offers near-total protection against HIV even if exposed. With that and other widely used antiretrovirals, we now have a real pathway to eradicating HIV from this country. Last year 40,000 people got HIV; by 2030 that number should be zero. That's the result of NIH-funded research. Gene-based therapies have never shown more promise. CRISPR-based gene editing has led to two treatments for sickle cell disease, a painful condition burdening families for generations, especially African-American children. NIH-funded researchers used the same technology to deliver a personalized treatment to a child with a rare, previously fatal disease. You might have heard of baby KJ; he has a disease that normally would have led to his death, but now he has the promise of a long healthy life thanks to NIH-funded research. This treatment was catalyzed by the NIH Common Fund somatic gene editing program and administered through an IV, editing the genes in baby KJ's liver to correct a lethal mutation. Technologies considered science fiction are leading to incredible advances. NIH-supported investigators developed computer systems that convert electrical signals in the brain to audible speech in real time, providing hope for stroke patients. Others have developed tiny electrodes implanted in the spinal cord to restore movement and touch. In ophthalmology, digital models of retinal cells allow researchers to test therapies for age-related macular degeneration before vision is lost. While novel research is exciting, treatments are often costly. One lever NIH can use is drug repurposing: existing FDA-approved medications found to have new therapeutic use shorten development timelines and reduce costs. Recent research suggests that the shingles vaccine, Zostavax, is associated with a reduced incidence of dementia. Even a 20% reduction could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. Another example is terazosin, a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, with emerging evidence for Parkinson's disease. By building on existing therapies, we can accelerate patient benefits while using resources efficiently. These are just a few examples of what sustained NIH investments can achieve. While the promise of NIH is strong, we must reflect on policies and evolve with changing technology. Reform is underway. A new office within the director will support rigorous analysis of the NIH portfolio to strengthen performance management, accountability, and promote reproducibility. As you said, it's vital that research is reproducible. I expect these efforts will lead to more value for every taxpayer dollar. Another example is new human-based models that will improve translatability and responsibly reduce animal research. One of my primary goals is to modernize how NIH funds science. Under my leadership, NIH has implemented a unified funding strategy to empower institute directors to make clear, consistent award decisions. Colleagues have embraced this because it empowers them to make scientific decisions that advance health rather than just produce papers. The new way of operating will reduce variability in funding and ensure investments align with NIH-wide priorities and urgent health needs. We will also develop strategies for greater geographic distribution of funding. The strength of American biomedical research lies in its rigor, openness, and ability to deliver enduring results. NIH's responsibility is to ensure federal investments produce reliable knowledge, measurable health gains, and lasting public benefits. We remain committed to scientific excellence and careful stewardship. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Dr. Bhattacharya. I will begin. In January of this year, I was very personally pleased to see that NIH announced its new policy to end funding of human fetal tissue from elective abortions for NIH-supported research. Instead, NIH will shift to supporting other promising research models. Can you talk about the potential of these cutting-edge research platforms, such as tissue chips and computational models, in helping us effectively model human disease?
When we made that decision to end fetal tissue research, we studied how many researchers were actually using the technology and found it was declining sharply, exactly because of the availability of alternatives. The new organoid technology is absolutely remarkable - it looks like science fiction. I went into a lab where they made a heart organoid that beats on its own. There was a story about a brain organoid that can play the video game Doom. The point is we have tremendous advances in biological technologies that can replace older, ethically controversial technologies. Instead of having science that divides, we now have science that unifies and produces better outcomes for scientific advance and the American people.
Good to hear. Thank you for doing that. You've commented before about how concentrated NIH research is, with a large share going to a relatively small group of institutions. It's critical to continue funding meritorious research, but there are brilliant minds across the country. Can you talk about barriers preventing them from successfully competing for NIH funding and what opportunities exist to expand access for high-quality research proposals?
The key issue is that about a third of our extramural research portfolio goes to about 20 institutions, amazing institutions including where I used to teach. But there are so many great scientists across the country with great ideas who have less chance of getting funded. I've been across the country - Oklahoma, Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arizona - and seen the promise of biomedical research everywhere. The reason is how we support facilities. To get facility support through indirect costs, you need great researchers at your institution to win grants, but to attract great researchers you need great facilities. It's a catch-22 that guarantees underinvestment across the country. We have a country poised to make the leap into the 21st century as the leading biomedical research nation, but we must invest in places outside the top 20. For example, the Parkinson's treatment I mentioned came from a visit to Iowa, where a researcher is focused on using an existing cheap drug for prostatic hyperplasia that could prevent Parkinson's. Ideas that will fundamentally transform medicine. We need more than a couple of biohubs; we need investment across the country.
Very good. I commend you for that and thanks for your work on that. In your testimony and public comments, you've talked about the need to rebuild America's public confidence in public health and scientific institutions, including NIH. This is critical to maintain broad, lasting support for invaluable research. Can you elaborate on the agency's recent efforts to restore trust in NIH's mission and the research it conducts and supports?
You mentioned a couple of things directly in line with this. First, we have focused on reproducibility to ensure that everyone - scientists, doctors, clinicians - understands that the science we do is valid and that independent teams will find the same answer. But ultimately, trust will be restored if we deliver research results that translate to better health for people. During the pandemic, trust in science and public health dropped because there was a sense that science wasn't working for people. The long-run solution is to deliver better treatments, cures, and ways to prevent disease, and to solve the chronic disease crisis. That is my main focus at NIH and also at CDC while I'm still acting director.
Thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just would say in terms of building confidence and trust in NIH, you talked about HIV and eradicating it - that is because of NIH-funded research. mRNA research, the funding we put in years back, allowed us to move rapidly to deal with the pandemic. Immunotherapy, sickle cell, and more. That is trust. The American people need to understand the remarkable discoveries and cures you have. We shouldn't allow a view that we can't trust NIH when it is really saving lives. Let me ask: I've heard from research institutions about competitive grants as a trickle. Now that OMB has finally approved NIH's apportionments, can you commit that NIH will accelerate its grant making and how long will it take to return to normal levels?
We did this last year. My colleagues at NIH accomplished a remarkable task despite disruptions, getting grants out the door and spending the entire allocation of fiscal year 2025 money. That team is the world's best. To answer directly, yes, we will spend the allocation on excellent science this year. Scientists listening, don't pay attention to the hype. We are in the process of identifying excellent projects. Grants are already going out. I just got an email from the new NCI director saying they are accelerating grant approvals. We will get the grants out the door this year.
Thank you for that guarantee. Let me also ask about CDC and staffing. You heard my opening statement about Secretary Kennedy hollowing out the CDC. Susan Maness is gone because she refused to rubber-stamp an anti-vaccine agenda. What are you going to do to return CDC experts from administrative leave? What actions can you take to retain CDC staff so that the 2026 appropriation can be implemented according to congressional intent and CDC does not become just a grant-making agency?
Congresswoman, I have taken seriously this second hat as acting director of CDC. I've spent a lot of time in Atlanta assessing what is working and what isn't, including revisiting the hiring plan to address some of the gaps. I found tremendous professionals at CDC who care deeply about public health. I've sent the message that I'm open to working with them. I was critical of CDC during the COVID pandemic, but there is real openness to discuss disagreements. I started in despair having to wear two hats, but I've come out with increasing hope. A concrete sign is how CDC responded to the measles outbreak in South Carolina. I gave a message that it's important to get kids vaccinated. The folks in South Carolina welcomed CDC aid and support. It was heartening to see CDC operating at full capacity. I'm committed to making sure whoever the next director is has a CDC that is working well.
I have a quick question. Dr. Bhattacharya, can you assure this committee that decisions about NIH research funding and awarding will be based solely on scientific merit and the potential to improve health and well-being of the American people? Thank you. I yield back.
Thank you very much. Good to see you, Jay. Let me make one comment about CDC and vaccines. The bottom line is that the COVID epidemic destroyed Americans' acceptance of vaccines because they were told things as absolute scientific truth that weren't. That came from the last leadership, with Anthony Fauci saying things that were demonstrably not true. Let me go to NIH. On indirect costs, I was at Hopkins, you were at Stanford; we are two of the institutions with the highest indirect costs and largest endowments. The announcement of a 15% cap - I think it should be around 30%, the median is 27-28%. If the median institution can do it, everybody should. We have to develop techniques to get there. I chair the Agriculture subcommittee; USDA's ARS has a statutory 30% limit. Private foundations like Gates cap at 10%, yet universities love those grants. We need to solve indirect costs. I suggested using savings to fund young investigator grants, but institutions like Stanford went to court instead. Stanford claimed a $160 million loss from 15%, yet had a $6 billion increase in endowment. Shame on them. We could have redirected those dollars. We have a $2 trillion deficit, $37 trillion debt; we have to be smarter. I hope we can work together so we don't have to implement a statutory limit. On nutrition, new data from the Nurses' Health Study II showed a 45% higher risk of early colon cancer from ultra-processed foods. Childhood obesity is 20%. What is NIH doing? We need a strategy for nutrition research to address these issues.
That's personal to me. The governor of Arkansas cited a paper I published in 2010 for the SNAP waiver. At NIH, we have a Common Fund program on ultra-processed food to investigate nutrition, and an Office of Nutrition Research coordinating investments. There is excellent science to be done; nutrition research does not have a great track record of reproducibility. But I agree with you entirely, Congressman Harris - giving kids sugary foods doesn't make sense as a parent or a doctor. Science backs that up. At NIH, we are fully committed to ensuring high-quality science.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Thank you. Thanks, Miss Watson Kman.
Federal law requires the NIH to increase diversity in the biomedical workforce. Do you agree that diversity is essential to your mission?
It is absolutely essential. Minority and female scientists are a fundamental part of improving the health of minority populations.
What concrete steps are you employing to recruit more diverse scientists?
Empowering early career scientists with great ideas to access NIH funds is key.
Do you have a program to identify and recruit underserved communities?
Yes, for example, American Indian native communities want to be included in research. We address health needs with the best ideas regardless of origin.
I'm concerned about DEI. What is NIH's definition of DEI and how do you reconcile the need for diversity with the administration's disrespect for DEI?
