More than 300 scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have signed an open letter criticizing the Trump administration for actions they believe undermine the institution’s mission. The letter, referred to as the Bethesda Declaration, expresses concerns about political interference, funding cuts, and impacts on global research collaboration. It was addressed to NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Among the specific grievances outlined, the scientists pointed out that budgetary constraints and staff reductions have adversely affected their ability to conduct crucial research. The letter emphasizes their dedication to serving public health rather than personal gain.
The NIH scientists shared their frustrations in a candid interview, highlighting attempts to address these issues internally without success, which prompted the decision to go public. They argued that while speaking out entails risks, the dangers of silence, especially during a pivotal moment where leadership is scrutinized, far outweigh those concerns.
The Bethesda Declaration draws parallels with the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, co-authored by Bhattacharya, which has been widely criticized for advocating a less restrictive approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, the scientists hope that by invoking familiar themes of dissent and academic freedom, they can spur Bhattacharya to take corrective action regarding their proposals, which include reversing funding cuts and reinstating staff.
Critics, including Bhattacharya himself, have responded that the claims in the letter reflect misunderstandings about NIH policies, insisting that international collaborations are still supported and that issues with grant terminations are being individually evaluated.
The NIH researchers expressed their desire for a constructive dialogue and urged the public to support their cause by signing a public letter or reaching out to congressional representatives. One scientist noted the importance of fostering a sense of hope and agency, despite acknowledging the challenges they face: “It’s vital to emphasize that while there has been damage, there’s still the potential for positive change.”
As they advocate for the restoration of funding and staff, these scientists demonstrate resilience and commitment to public health, underscoring their belief that collaborative efforts can ultimately lead to solutions that better foster scientific progress and community welfare.