I really enjoyed today’s conversation with Dr. Michael Green. The purpose of our conversation was to go through his 90-second question addressed directly to NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya during a recent episode of the podcast Why Should I Trust You?
We did that and more.
In addition to learning about Dr. Green’s impressive early journey in science (you can find his Substack here), we dissected Dr. Bhattacharya’s puzzling responses to his question. In doing this, I came away with many insights. First, on the merits of the question, Dr. Bhattacharya’s answers were simply not compelling. At times, his answers were not only inadequate but at times troubling. Second, it’s clear to me that Dr. Green has thought deeply about the scientific process. He is open to learning about science and research. He gave us a glimpse into how he thinks about science. His words gave me great hope for the future.
I hope you’ll listen to our conversation. If you prefer to read highlights, you’ll find a summary of some key points from our interview below.
Closed captions (㏄) for the above video and a transcript option (📄) can be found beneath the video playback control bar above.
Speaking Out: Dr. Michael Green on NIH Funding and the Politicization of Science
Summary aided by ChatGPT.
Why We Launched the Speaking Out Series
0:32 — We open the livestream by explaining the purpose of the Speaking Out series: highlighting the human consequences of the Trump administration’s changes to science and public health policy under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Rather than focusing only on funding totals or agency restructuring, we want to hear directly from scientists whose careers have been affected.
Meet Dr. Michael Green
3:12 — We welcome Dr. Michael Green, a population health researcher who recently completed his PhD at Duke after studying medical anthropology at Dartmouth. His research focuses on health disparities, particularly how experiences in healthcare systems influence long-term cardiovascular and cognitive outcomes.
DEI vs. Health Equity Research
5:07 — We clarify the difference between diversity initiatives and health equity research. Dr. Green explains that his work examines measurable differences in health outcomes and patient experiences—not workforce diversity programs—yet those categories are increasingly conflated in the current political environment.
The Grant That Was Supposed to Launch a Career
11:04 — Dr. Green describes the NIH F99/K00 award he received through the National Institute on Aging. The fellowship is designed to fund a student through the final stage of a PhD and provide a bridge into a postdoctoral position.
Forced to Rewrite the Grant
12:27 — Nearly a year after the grant had been awarded, NIH told Dr. Green he needed to renegotiate the proposal to remove “DEI activities.” He received no explanation of what language triggered the concern and was given just one week to revise roughly 70 pages of work.
Two Revisions—Still No Funding
13:07 — Dr. Green explains that he complied with the request twice, including removing references to Black patients and discrimination in healthcare. Despite those revisions, the funding was never restored and the award remains effectively terminated.
What the Loss of Funding Means
15:16 — We discuss how NIH training grants are structured to provide continuity from doctoral training to postdoctoral research. Interrupting that pathway leaves early-career scientists without salary, benefits, or institutional support.
The Importance of Scientific Process
17:55 — We emphasize that the NIH funding system relies on peer review and study sections to evaluate proposals. When political directives override that process, it undermines the integrity of the scientific enterprise.
Why Dr. Green Chose to Speak Out
19:09 — Dr. Green explains the personal and professional risks of publicly confronting the NIH director. As a young researcher dependent on federal funding, speaking out could carry real career consequences.
Research Rooted in Personal Experience
21:01 — His research interest grew from family experiences in which relatives avoided preventive care because they felt dismissed in healthcare settings—often returning only when their illnesses had progressed.
The Broader Impact on Early-Career Scientists
23:03 — We discuss how funding instability disproportionately affects young researchers, especially those transitioning from training programs into faculty or postdoctoral positions.
Fear Among International Scientists
24:52 — We share an example of a collaborator who declined authorship on a paper out of concern that politically sensitive research might jeopardize their visa status.
Bhattacharya’s Response
26:07 — We play the clip from the Why Should You Trust Me? podcast in which NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya responds to Dr. Green’s question. Bhattacharya claims Dr. Green failed to “take advantage of the opportunity” to rethink his grant.
Dismissing the Science Without Reviewing It
27:08 — Bhattacharya speculates that the proposal may represent “bad science,” even though he acknowledges he has not read the grant itself.
Why That Response Matters
29:26 — We discuss why dismissing peer-reviewed research without examining the methods raises concerns about political interference in the grant review process.
A Personal Moment During the Grant Fight
30:54 — Dr. Green shares that the second revision request arrived the same week as his grandfather’s funeral. His grandfather died of congestive heart failure—the very condition his research was designed to study.
Is Discrimination a Legitimate Research Topic?
32:27 — The conversation turns to the scientific debate itself. Bhattacharya appears reluctant to acknowledge discrimination as a plausible driver of health disparities.
Biology vs. Systems of Care
33:13 — We explain that changes in access to care can dramatically alter health outcomes between populations over time—something biology alone cannot explain.
Designing the Research Question
35:20 — Dr. Green describes how his study would measure patient-reported discrimination and evaluate whether those experiences correlate with measurable health outcomes.
Why These Questions Matter for Public Health
36:22 — We note that improving health outcomes often depends not on discovering new therapies but on ensuring that people receive the care we already know works.
A Debate Over Scientific Framing
38:00 — The discussion returns to the podcast exchange, where Bhattacharya challenges interviewers to define a precise research hypothesis. The exchange illustrates the tension between political messaging and scientific inquiry.
What Happens When Science Becomes Political
45:00 — We discuss how ideological debates can distort the way research questions are framed and evaluated.
The Risk to America’s Scientific Leadership
52:00 — We consider the long-term implications: fewer young scientists entering research careers, increased uncertainty in federal funding, and the possibility of talent leaving the United States.
Why Speaking Out Matters
57:00 — We close by reflecting on why transparency and open discussion are essential to protecting the scientific process—and why early-career researchers like Dr. Green deserve to have their voices heard.
Please suggest other experts we should hear from in the Speaking Out series!
