
Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to fund invalid, ideologically driven âscientificâ research that subsidizes leftist activists and harms conservatives and the American people at large. Thereâs currently no plan to stop.
Conversely, NIH does not fund obvious research topics that would help the American people, because of institutional leftist bias.
While serving as a senior advisor at NIH, I discovered many active grants like these:
âExamining Anti-Racist Healing in Nature to Protect Telomeres of Transitional Age BIPOC for Health Equityâ â Take minority teens to parks in a bid to reduce telomere erosion (the shortening of repetitive DNA sequences as we age). $3.8 million in five years and no results published â not surprising, given their absurd premise.
âEcological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adultsâ â This rests on an invalid leftist ideological concept â âmicroaggressions.â An example of a âmicroaggressionâ is a white person denying heâs racist. They canât be validly measured since theyâre simply definedinto existence by Orwellian leftist ideology, with no attempt to discover the alleged aggressorâs motives.
âInfluence of Social Media, Social Networks, and Misinformation on Vaccine Acceptance Among Black and Latinx Individualsâ â from an activist who said the phrase âThe coronavirus is genetically engineeredâ was âmisinformationâ and also conducted a bizarre, partisan study based entirely on a Trump tweet about recovering from COVID.
The study claimed that people saw COVID as less âseriousâ after the tweet. I apologize for the flashback to when Democrats demanded everyone feel the exact level of COVID panic and anti-optimism they felt (and share their false beliefs on the efficacy of school closures, masks, and vaccines ). NIH fundedthis study and gave him another $651,586 in July for his new âmisinformationâ study, including $200,000 from the Office of the Director.
Iâm a social psychologist who has focused on the harms of ideological bias in academic research. Our sensemaking institutions have been gashed by a cult political ideology that treats its conjectures and abstractions as descriptively true, without argument or even explanation, and enforces conformity with inhumane psychologizing and ostracism. This ideology â which dominates academia and NIH â poses an unprecedented threat to our connection to reality, and thus to science, by vaporizing the distinction between descriptive reality and ideological tenets.
In March, I emailed Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, and pitched him on how I could build an objective framework to eliminate ideological bias in NIH-funded research.
Jay seemed to agree with my analysis. We spoke on the phone, and I started in May as a senior advisor to Jay in the Office of the Director (NIH-OD).
I never heard from Jay again beyond a couple of cursory replies.
For four months, I read tons of grants, passed a lengthy federal background check, started to build the pieces, and contacted Jay about once a week with questions, follow-up, and example grants. Dead air â he was ghosting me.
Jay also bizarrely deleted the last two monthsâ worth of my messages to him but kept the older ones. Iâd sent him a two-page framework summary, asked if I should keep working on it, and also asked if Iâd done something wrong, given his persistent lack of response. No response.
In September, the contractors working at NIH-OD, me included, were laid off. No explanation was given.
I have no idea what happened here. Itâs been the strangest and most unprofessional experience of my career.
The result is that NIH is still funding ideological, scientifically invalid research and will continue to ignore major topics because of leftist bias. We have a precious opportunity for lasting reform, and that opportunity will be lost without a systematic approach to eliminating ideology in science.
Whatâs happened so far is that DOGE cut some grants earlier this year, after a search for DEI terms. It was a good first step but caught some false positives and missed most of the ideological research, including many grants premised on âmicroaggressions,â âsystemic racism,â âintersectionality,â and other proprietary, question-begging leftist terms. Leftist academics are adapting to the earlier culling by changing their terminology, as in a table labeled âShifting language used in grant titles.â A systematic framework is needed to defeat these games.
DOGE didnât have the right search terms, and a systematic, objective anti-bias framework is necessary to do the job. Itâs also more legally resilient and persuasive to reachable insiders â thereâs no way to reform a huge bureaucracy without getting buy-in from some insiders (yes, you also have to fire some people). This mission requires empowered people at every funding agency who are thoroughly familiar with leftist ideology, can cleanly define âideology,â and build robust frameworks to remove it from scientific research.
My framework identifies four areas of bias so far:
Ideological research
Rigged research
Ideological denial of science / suppression of data
Missing research â research that would happen if not for leftist bias
The missing research at NIH likely hurts the most â e.g. American men commit suicide at unusually high rates, especially white and American Indian men, yet NIH funds no research on this. But they do fund âHypertension Self-management in Refugees Living in San Diego.â
Similarly, NIH is AWOL on the health benefits of religious observance and prayer, a promising area of research that Muslim countries are taking the lead on. These two gaping holes suggest that NIH is indifferent to the American people and even culturally and ideologically hostile them.
Joe Duarte grew up in small copper-mining towns in Southern Arizona, earned his PhD in social psychology, and focuses on political bias in media and academic research. You can find his workhere, find him on Xhere, and contact him at gravity at protonmail.com.
(Featured Image Media Credit:Â Screen Capture/PBS North Carolina Channel)
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporterâs byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
