The NIH is having a weird one.

Three updates from an embattled agency.

Hi all. Today, we’ve got one deeper dive (with some personal touches) about an oft-repeated falsehood favored by the NIH’s soon-to-be new Director, followed by two shorter stories about the NIH.

A quick thanks to the Premium subscribers. Your upgrades are keeping this sustainable for me, and you’re helping to keep most of the content free for everyone (although some bonus Premium content is coming soon). I appreciate you!

And for those who haven’t yet joined the Premium Inside Medicine community, I hope you’ll consider doing so. Thanks! —Jeremy

---

99% of US public school children were learning in-person full-time between December 2021-February 2022. The Institute of Education Sciences.

The soon-to-be NIH Director can’t count to two. (Covid seems to have caused amnesia on how long schools were actually closed in the US.)

My “old friend” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will soon be confirmed as the next Director of the NIH. (I’m being sarcastic, but I’ll save my history of sparring with Jay for another time. Suffice it to say, he doesn’t love being fact-checked by me.) One thing that I wanted to flag in Jay’s Senate confirmation hearing earlier this week, was that he repeated the lie that US schools were closed for two years during the pandemic. This falsehood gets repeated often, but Jay is among its most stalwart devotees. Bari Weiss repeated it at TED last year—and I didn’t have time to debunk that statement in my 90-second mainstage appearance. I’ve even heard that mutant statistic repeated by intelligent friends of mine who just seem to have lost track of time or something.

Folks, schools closed in March of 2020. Many opened in the fall of 2020. Then some closed again, because that didn’t go so well. But fortunately, most schools had returned to in-person learning (either hybrid or all in-person) by January 2021. By spring of 2021, 76% of 4th graders (and 70% of 8th graders) were learning either all in-person or hybrid. (That’s one and a quarter years, not two years.) By September 2021 (one and a half years after the pandemic erupted, including six months of summer vacation), 98% of kids were learning in-person. By December-February 2021, it was 99%.

But here’s what Jay said under oath to the Senate (italics added): “Millions of children were out of school for years, the rates of suicidality [sic], depression were through the roof.”

For years? Why lie? I just don’t get it. You can make the point that schools were closed too long without spreading false information. Also, the rates of suicidality did indeed increase in teens in 2021, but those increases (in teen girls, mainly) corresponded to a time when schools had re-opened. (Note: CSPAN’s incorrectly transcribed Jay as saying “suicide,” but thankfully he correctly said “suicidality.” Suicide deaths actually went down during the first year of the pandemic, and rates were flat in kids.)

Look, the data on school closures and their benefits are a hot mess and interpretations of the various policies are worse. But it’s just factually inaccurate to say that schools were closed for two years. Yes, some kids missed part of two school years because they missed three months in the spring of 2020, and then (in some cases) some more during the 2020-2021 year. But outside of a few enclaves (San Francisco being one), almost all kids were back in schools for most or all of the fall 2020-spring 2021 school year. I don’t think prolonged closures were necessary, but it’s simply misleading to go before Congress and say US schools were closed for two years. Let’s get the facts right before we start debating the implications of those facts.

Meanwhile, many have concluded that kids didn’t spread Covid from their schools in 2020, but that’s like saying rain ain’t wet because you stayed indoors. It’s obvious that kids spread Covid to some degree. The question was always what to do about that and how to overcome the chaos. For my part, I repeatedly said that we needed to make choices so that schools would be the last places to close and the first places to open. I don’t remember a single time that I advocated for a closing of schools in any public forum. I certainly felt that if we had adequate testing and other measures, we could have kept schools open for almost the entire pandemic—but absent those, closures were likely briefly needed or, unfortunately, would just happen spontaneously because there wouldn’t be enough teachers available to teach during uncontrolled waves.

Do I think we could have safely kept schools open every single day of the Covid-19 pandemic? Probably not. But we could have done much, much better, especially after the first month or two when we had enough tests and adequate time to implement other mitigation measures. Also, if we start to plan now, when the inevitable next pandemic arrives we might be able to achieve the goal of zero missed days of school for most kids (or at least come close). Sadly, I fear that the zealotry behind the idea that we should “never close a school for a single day ever again no matter what” is exactly the kind of narrow-minded thinking that will lead to more school closures, not fewer. And this leads me to something that Jay said in his hearing that I hope is true:

“…[If] confirmed, I will establish a culture of respect for free speech in science and scientific dissent at the NIH. Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of coverup, obfuscation, and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differed from theirs. Dissent is the very essence of science. I will foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists–including early career scientists–can express disagreement respectfully.”

Well, Jay, let’s test that. If you need someone to tell you if you’re wrong about anything, you know I’ll be glad to oblige you. And, hey, if you’re right about something, I won’t be afraid to tell you “good job!”

Even though we have disagreed vigorously on some things related to Covid, I’d like to think Jay means well. The question is, will Jay be able to stand up to his boss RFK Jr. and defend vaccines, good research, and be as open to criticism and critiques as he claims he will be. Here’s to hoping.

Hundreds of NIH grants that are too offensive for the Trump administration may be axed.

The NIH plans to terminate “hundreds” of active research grants, Nature reported. Some of that has begun. The Nature story included information about Dr. Tara McKay, whose story was shared here in Inside Medicine back on Monday.

The target for these cuts are projects that the Trump administration deems to be “DEI.” A memo reproduced in the story indicates that research determined to be for the “sole purpose” of DEI should not be funded. However, projects that are only “partially” related to DEI can be modified so as to be complaint with the administration’s delicate sensibilities. Bizarrely, even research projects that are not DEI-related per se, but mention “a commitment to diversity” will need to be purged, according to the memo.

These Trump people are nothing if not ideologues. So much for their commitment to free speech.

NIH says it will “centralize” its approach to research grant adjudication.

***NOTE: Several people have told me that I have this story wrong and that the NIH is not canceling all study sections. I need to go back and sort out what is happening but in the meantime, here’s URL to the announcement. If anyone here can help interpret what is happening, I’d be most grateful. Thanks!***

The NIH is changing the way it will determine which biomedical science projects receive funding by centralizing the process. The announcement made the sudden and massive change seem like it would merely improve efficiency. But it’s hard to take the administration seriously when President Trump and Elon Musk have spent the first six weeks of this term trying to dismantle US public health and medical assets, including attempts to make devastating funding cuts and firings.

The upshot is that the NIH will eliminate the usual first round of peer review, which until now was carried out by “study sections” of the agency’s various specialty institutes and centers. Study sections are composed of dedicated volunteer experts mainly from colleges and universities. These are highly skilled and passionate scientists. Their opinions should not be marginalized. More information will be needed, but this seems like a way for the Trump administration to consolidate power into the hands of a few so that political ideology can control funding decisions on the future of science. Ironically, the NIH memo claims that the move will help eliminate bias.

That’s all for now! Reminder: If you are employed by the government (or were recently let go) and would like to speak to me informally, please email me or find me on Signal at "InsideMedicine.88." I promise to maintain your confidentiality.

---

Thanks for reading, sharing, speaking out, and supporting Inside Medicine! Please ask your questions in the comments and if you can’t upgrade due to financial considerations, just email me.