Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is President Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health (NIH), historically the world’s largest source of funding for biomedical research.
On March 5th, the Stanford University professor of health policy will appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee as he seeks confirmation to lead one of the nation’s most influential health organizations.
Here’s what you should know about Bhattacharya.
He’s the son of immigrants
Born in Kolkata, India, Bhattacharya has stated that his mother came from impoverished circumstances, while his father, an electrical engineer, belonged to the middle class. His family immigrated to the U.S. in the 1970s, initially settling in Massachusetts and subsequently in California, near Los Angeles. At the age of 18, Bhattacharya converted to Presbyterianism from Hinduism.
He’s interested in health economics
Bhattacharya obtained four degrees from Stanford: a bachelor’s, a master’s, an MD, and a PhD. He was an economist at the RAND Corporation before returning to Stanford as a faculty member.
Bhattacharya’s research has focused on health economics, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable populations in the U.S., examining the impact of the nation’s healthcare system and government policies on their health.
He holds controversial views on COVID-19
During the pandemic, Bhattacharya became a well-known but dissenting voice, frequently giving interviews and writing opinion pieces arguing that public health officials were overreacting to the virus. He believed, based on the data he reviewed, that COVID-19 was significantly less severe than health experts, including those in government, were portraying it, and he asserted that COVID-19 tests were primarily detecting severe cases and symptomatic individuals, while a much larger number of people were infected but asymptomatic. He stated in a 2020 that many people had evidence of COVID infection that wouldn’t be counted because they didn’t seek medical attention and had mild infections.
In March 2020, he co-authored a controversial in the Wall Street Journal questioning the necessity of lockdowns. He argued that the widespread quarantine might not be worth the economic, social, and mental and physical health costs, advocating for an immediate evaluation of the empirical basis for the current lockdowns.
He also co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in October 2020, an open letter calling for an end to lockdowns. Instead, it proposed allowing individuals at low risk of COVID-19 infection to continue their normal lives, with the expectation that they would develop mild illness if infected and contribute to herd immunity, eventually safeguarding the entire population.
Critics of this strategy emphasized that it would still put those most vulnerable to serious complications from the virus, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, at risk.
He also expressed opposition to mask mandates in schools. In 2021, he co-authored an article claiming that masks provided “infinitesimally small” benefits in preventing serious illness or death from COVID-19 in children, and that COVID-19 posed a lesser threat to children than accidents or the common flu. His opinions clashed with those of numerous public health officials, and he stated that he faced criticism for expressing them.
His challenge at NIH
If his confirmation is successful, Bhattacharya will lead an agency facing a critical juncture. The Trump Administration has placed restrictions on funding to institutions, setting a limit on overhead cost reimbursement at just 15% of the total grant amount (as opposed to the previous range of 30-70% or higher). While this new policy is currently suspended by a federal judge, Bhattacharya would be tasked with navigating any changes to the agency’s grant-making procedures and reforms, which many scientists believe are necessary, to improve the NIH’s efficiency.
Some experts suggest that his medical background and understanding of health data would be valuable assets in leading the esteemed research institution. However, as STAT reported, others have concerns about his interpretation of data, suggesting it could lead to inaccurate conclusions. Jason Abaluck, a professor of economics at Yale School of Management, stated that he would prefer Bhattacharya’s appointment over a potentially worse alternative, believing that his absence might lead to the selection of someone even less suitable.