Trump cuts NIH grants and the media screams; VP pulls up the NIH grant funded papers and reviews them- Whoa, they are useless, and should be cut!

Stop asking "is this topic important" ask "is this grant making a difference?"

Every time Trump cuts something, the media screams. How can you cut funding on <this important issue>?, they ask. The media tries to define the debate as “is this an important topic”? But that isn’t the right question. The question is “will these funds make a positive impact on the topic?” Enter the latest battle.

The NIH cuts funding for studies on vaccine hesitancy. Well of course, I think we would all agree that vaccine hesitancy is an important topic, and we need to know more. But that isn’t the question. The question is whether or not what we are funding is helpful.

And let me, at the outset, give you a reason why it might be unhelpful. We all know in medicine there are different doctors and scientists. There are a few who are open minded and curious, who approach issues from all vantages. They are willing to consider that recent rise in vaccine hesitancy is fueled by third party fringe elements, but also willing to consider it was fueled by the misguided covid-19 vaccine campaign and mandate, and the annual booster campaign,

Then there are the ideologues. Vaccine researchers who just repeat bland slogans “they are all safe and effective!” without considering nuance. Ideologues invariably blame third parties— and ignore all the recent errors. Many of the people with grant funding to study this topic are ideologues.

If you want to fund effective research on vaccine hesitancy— you would draw distinctions between important vaccines (measles or polio) and less important ones (covid-19, hep B (on day 1— can it happen later, as in Europe), and even arguably some others).

If you wanted to fund effective research, you would consider which strategy is better to reduce hesitancy— reassure parents that all is fine, and we know these products are safe— or admit what we don’t know— while we have great confidence for some products, for others there is massive uncertainty.

To address these questions, I picked the last few NIH funded vaccine hesitancy papers on Pubmed and decided to see what the hell is the NIH funding. These are consecutive articles, no omissions.

Exhibit 1.

This is a review article published in a low tier journal. It was NIH funded. I read it and learned nothing of value. It repeated empty platitudes favored by ideologues. It had no original data or insights. Verdict: funding should be cut.

Exhibit 2

This paper was low quality survey paper. It asked these derivative and dull questions.

There wasn’t a single sentence in this paper that I found interesting or intriguing. It could not offer pathways for solutions. Verdict: funding should be cut.

Exhibit 3

For a moment, I got my hopes up and thought that they actually ran an experiment to study this and reduce hesitancy, but it is ANOTHER REVIEW article. It literally says NOTHING new. No new ideas— it repeats the same thing you would read in the newspaper every day. It considers no new angles, and offers no new insights. Verdict: funding should be cut.

I did this for 10 more articles and they were all like this. Again, consecutively chosen in reverse chronologic order.

So, should NIH cut the funding? Yes!! We need new ideas and innovative approaches to vaccine hesitancy. We need researchers who are at least willing to consider that one reason it is rising lately is that our covid policy further bred distrust. How can you overcome that if you won’t admit it?

The media keeps whining about what Trump cuts, but their analyses are superficial. I think they are unhelpful. Take a look at the specific grants, you will find many should be cut. Very often you will find that a field needs a reboot.