On March 17, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) held a hearing with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This oversight hearing provided appropriators with the opportunity to question Bhattacharya about NIH’s research portfolio, policies, and plans for reform. Committee members on both sides of the aisle seemed pleased with Bhattacharya’s leadership, though they did raise concerns about issues including grant disbursement, the current Institute Directors and Advisory Committee vacancies vacuum, and early career scientists.
Opening Remarks
Chair Robert Aderholt (R-AL) welcomed attendees by recognizing NIH’s position as the world’s premier biomedical and behavioral research institution while also highlighting the public’s decreasing trust in the agency. He emphasized that NIH’s main priority should be translating biomedical research into tangible improvements in Americans’ health. He also praised Bhattacharya for making replication and reproducibility key agency priorities.
In her opening remarks, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (R-CT) initially focused on the FY26 LHHS bill passed in January, highlighting achievements such as the $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s research and $30 million increase for the Office of Research on Women’s Health (see previous FABBS article). She then pivoted to the challenges faced by the agency over the last year — many the direct result of Trump Administration policies — including grant terminations and staffing shortages.
Director Bhattacharya’s prepared testimony reviewed several of NIH’s achievements from the past year, many of which built on years of investments in the basic sciences. These include gene-based therapies for sickle cell disease and other rare conditions, prevention strategies to end the HIV epidemic, and new technologies to assist stroke patients. Dr. Bhattacharya also discussed his plans for modernizing the agency, mentioning a new unified funding strategy and spreading awards over a larger number of institutions.
Committee Member Questions and Concerns
The remainder of the hearing featured two rounds of questions from committee members. Several asked questions about specific areas in the NIH research portfolio, such as fluoride and oral health, sleep, nutrition, and HIV. Common themes included restoring trust in scientific research and NIH, as well as increasing the number of awards made to historically underfunded institutions. Bhattacharya agreed on both points, noting that more must be done to build research capacity in small institutions so that they are more competitive when applying for grants.
Both Republicans and Democrats raised concerns about the decreased number of awards made so far this year compared to in years past. Representative DeLauro noted that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had been holding up NIH funds while Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) pointed to fewer funding opportunities as a major problem. At several points during the hearing, Bhattacharya affirmed that NIH will spend all of its FY26 funds by the end of the year. The director dismissed Representative Stephanie Bice’s (R-OK) question about bottlenecks interfering with getting awards out, stating there is a lot of “political noise” regarding funding delays that does not reflect reality. This contradicts what FABBS has been hearing from both federal colleagues and grantees, who have indicated that staffing shortages among numerous other challenges have played a large role in spending delays.
Committee Democrats also homed in on the role of politics in grantmaking and other NIH policies. Bhattacharya assured Representative DeLauro that the agency’s funding decisions are based on scientific merit and the potential to improve the health and well-being of Americans, and nothing else. However, it is still unclear how recent executive orders requiring political oversight in federal grantmaking may influence funding decisions at NIH (see previous FABBS article).
Representatives Hoyer, Bice, and Madeleine Dean (D-PA) asked about the current leadership vacuum at NIH institutes. At the time of the publication, 16 institutes and centers (ICs) are still without permanent directors. FABBS has communicated with key congressional offices about this issue for several months now and we appreciate that the director was once again pushed on this issue. (He had faced similar questions during a Senate hearing in early February; see previous FABBS article.) Bhattacharya claimed twice that the hiring process is moving as quickly as possible and new IC directors should be announced this month. He also assured committee members that hiring decisions would not consider political ideology but instead focus on science:
- Is the applicant scientifically capable?
- Has the applicant demonstrated real leadership in their field?
- Does the applicant have a vision, a passion for new ideas in their field?
Bhattacharya indicated that external groups are involved in the hiring process. This was a sticking point at his last Congressional hearing in February. During that hearing, several Democrats questioned the decision not to include external experts in search committees and pointed to FY26 report language requiring their inclusion in this process. At the time, Bhattacharya argued the inclusion of external experts added too much time to the hiring process, but it seems he has reversed course sometime in the last few weeks.
The second round of questions focused primarily on supporting researchers-in-training and early career scientists. Both Democrats and Republicans shared stories from constituents who are reconsidering STEM careers due to lack of support from the federal government, poor grant success rates, and perceived instability in these fields. Bhattacharya argued that a culture change is needed so young scientists feel they can succeed and that their high-risk, high-reward research will be supported.
FABBS Efforts
As part of our advocacy, FABBS has been communicating with key congressional offices about NIH and other federal agencies’ adherence to the report language accompanying the FY26 appropriations bills. We appreciate that Bhattacharya repeatedly stated his commitment to following the directives laid out by Congress in the LHHS bill. For example, he assured Representative DeLauro that NIH will adhere to the multi-year funding limitations set in the bill report. He emphasized that spending decisions are in the hands of Congress and NIH must spend its allocated funds as instructed. FABBS will continue to monitor the implementation of critical pieces of report language most relevant to our sciences.
Interested in NIH advocacy? Join us on Friday, April 3 at 1:00pm ET for a virtual office hour where we will discuss FABBS’ response to the recently released Request for Information on the NIH Strategic Plan Framework. If you would like to attend, please register for the Zoom call here.
