I spent more than five decades as a scientist in the academic world and the federal government, especially as director of the National Institutes of Health. Never before I saw my profession as politicized as in the Trump administration.
Historically, Americans of all political persuas have respected science and celebrated its breakthroughs. In my field, they range from the discovery of the fundamental mechanisms of cancer to the development of drugs that improve and prolong people’s lives.
And yet, for confusing reasons, the executive power now puts war on the American scientific company. This attack includes the appointment of leaders hostile to science and without reservation for their roles; Take a decrees dam that disrupts research by restricting meetings, publications, travel and subsidies; censor ideas and even certain words of scientific discourse; and try to retain billions of dollars Universities and other research institutions that help pay research costs.
Since 1945, when President Franklin Roosevelt’s scientific advisor, Vannevar Bush, has described a plan for national research, government agencies have financed the fundamental sciences carried out in universities, research institutions and government laboratories. Companies then transform their results into products that stimulate economic growth and improve our lives. In this way, the United States has come to direct the world in almost all areas of science and technology. The awards were obvious in practically all aspects of human life, including medicine, agriculture, national defense and manufacturing.
This process has never been free from disagreement. The interested parties have argued on many things: how many funding should each federal science agency receive from the congress? How should agencies spend this money? How to assess subsidy requests? Who owns research products? What types of research should be exempt from federal support?
These questions are routine and their answers have moved between the administrations. But one thing has remained constant: regardless of their personal opinions on controversial subjects, members of executive and legislative branches have long considered themselves as guards of precious goods – the country’s scientific and technological communities.
Today is very different. Scientists working in the federal government or in research establishments funded by the federal government are wondering how their work can continue.
Several of the people appointed to direct the federal health and science agencies are hostile to the institutions and to the people they are supposed to serve. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the criticisms of the country’s most notorious vaccines, is now the Secretary of Health – despite his history of disinformation dissemination, his denigration of the staff of the Ministry of Health and Social Services and His bizarre and immature behavior.
Dr. Dave Weldon, a former member of the congress, was used to direct the centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pushed the long -term affirmation that vaccines cause autism. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, health economist appointed to direct the NIH, the biggest supporter in the world of medical research, seems to be sheltering grievances against criticism of his ideas to give up certain public health measures to brake COVVI-19. He is would have Considering a bizarre plan that would make institutions accused of stifling “academic freedom” less likely to receive funding from NIH.
Such appointments seem unsuitable and remain consistent with the other actions of the Trump administration aimed at resolving the science and health security of America. President Trump withdraws the United States from the World Health Organization and dismantles the American agency for international development. Immigration policies make America an unattractive destination for talented foreign students who have long contributed to our success in science and technology.
The efforts made last week to deprive universities and other research institutions for billions of NIH dollars necessary to support scientific infrastructure was at least temporarily blocked in the courts. But they reveal to what extent the new administration is willing to deactivate our scientific company.
It’s time to think about the wonders of science, in which America has played a leading role. The wonder to reveal the genetic plan of life. The meticulous brilliance behind the deciphering of how cells react to their environment and infectious invaders. If attacks against our scientists and their institutions are authorized to continue, our future envisaged of longer and healthier lives will occur more slowly, in other countries, or not at all.
Perhaps what is most discouraging, this is what looks like the absence of generalized opposition to this detangling. Fortunately, in some situations, the judges intervened, but there were not the types of public demonstrations in support of the science that occurred, with less provocation, in the first mandate of Mr. Trump. The industries that depend on new scientific discoveries to maintain their global market share have largely silent. The Republican members of the Congress, even those who have generally supported the federal government, were subject to party directives.
Prevention of this destruction will require at least two actions. Americans who appreciate the spirit of discovery – and impatiently expect new ways to deal with the disease, strengthen our economy and improve the quality of human life – must issue a strong outcry. And legislators must exercise their constitutional responsibilities to oppose unqualified candidates for important federal positions, to force the harmful actions on the part of the executive power and to give the scientific agencies the resources necessary to do their work. This is not a fight that our country can afford to lose.
Harold Varmus is a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College. He shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of cancer genes and was director of the National Institutes of Health from 1993 to 1999.
Times is determined to publish A diversity of letters to the publisher. We would like to hear what you think or one of our articles. Here are some advice. And here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times opinion section on Facebook,, Instagram,, Tiktok,, Bluesky,, Whatsapp And Threads.