Jay Bhattacharya just got confirmed to lead the NIH yesterday. In that role, there are reasons to think he may discourage or even stop some important research and funding.
As a stem cell biologist, I’ve been looking out for indications of possible restrictions on our field’s work during the new administration. Bhattacharya’s statements signal potential problematic decisions ahead on our field. But much will depend on whether his past statements including during his confirmation hearing guide future decisions at NIH. Now that he’s the leader, he could see things somewhat differently.
Jay Bhattacharya and NIH funding of fetal and stem cell research
What has he said in the past?
FASEB recently did a helpful summary of Bhattacharya’s NIH confirmation hearing.
The FASEB summary and a news article from a Catholic media outlet suggest NIH under Bhattacharya could curtail fetal tissue and stem cell research with negative consequences. From FASEB on Bhattacharya (emphasis added):
“He also affirmed his commitment to follow the law and to follow the lead of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to prohibit the use of fetal tissue from abortions in NIH funded research because there are people who morally object to mRNA vaccines made or developed with fetal stem cell lines. He said that in public health, we need to make sure the products of science are ethically acceptable to everybody.“
There are some puzzling elements to this passage.
First, fetal stem cell lines don’t seem to play much of a role in mRNA vaccine development.
It’s not splitting hairs to note that workhorse 293 HEK cells, used in some steps of certain vaccine development pipelines, are not stem cells. These are fetal kidney cells that grow quickly but are not stem cells. Another fetal cell line used in vaccine production or research, called PER.C6 cells, also does not consist of stem cells. So was the inclusion of “stem cells” in there a mistake?
It’s also important to emphasize that most stem cell research has nothing to do with embryos, fetuses, or fetal tissues.
Everybody has to agree on how to do life sciences?
Second, the word everybody quoted above is also problematic. Just because some people object to a certain kind of biomedical research tool like a cell line, he’s saying it should not be used?
More broadly, is there anything in the world that is acceptable to everybody? I doubt it.
If 20% of people objected to the use of chicken eggs to make some vaccines, should that be banned too? You can probably find 10-20% of people objecting to just about anything even outside of science.
A clip of the video of Bhattacharya’s confirmation hearing is posted above.
The Catholic News Agency led with this on Bhattacharya’s hearing: “President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said in his confirmation hearing last week that he was “absolutely committed” to finding alternatives to vaccines developed using aborted fetal cell lines.” They also mentioned RFK Jr.
From all that I’ve seen of RFK Jr. in the public domain, it’s only recently that he’s said anything about issues with fetal cells. In the past he was pro-choice.
Bhattacharya atop NIH
What are the alternatives to fetal cells for elements of vaccine development? There are possibilities like using iPS cells but no guarantees. Also, a switch could slow some vaccine development. In turn, that could cost lives.
In the big picture, how will Bhattacharya run NIH? Could he help the agency bounce back from all the cuts and other problems the last few months?
I don’t have a clear sense of what he is like as a leader. This piece over at STAT News has helpful background on Battacharya.
Like Marty Makary, Bhattacharya is seen as relatively more qualified for his intended position than many other new administration leaders. Yet, both have made statements that are highly concerning including in particular about COVID.
Makary was also confirmed yesterday so he is officially the FDA Commissioner.
Of these two new leaders, who will function best to promote excellence in science and medicine relatively free from politics? The optimist might say that both will rise to the occasion and put biomedical science first. However, politics is powerful. Let’s see how it goes.
Sort of like you bad mouthing Cell Surgical Network helping patients use their own cells to provide a better quality of life….funny how you expect everyone to agree with your view of science.
@chris,
I don’t expect others to necessary agree with me. Definitely not everyone. This blog naturally will reflect my opinions. One possible healthy outcome from a post is to spark discussion.
Like I wrote in this post, the idea that everybody has to agree about the ethics of specific types of science, like certain kinds of cell lines, seems unrealistic to me. Human germline CRISPR is another example. For years there was discussion about reaching an international consensus on heritable gene editing, but that’s just not going to happen. Maybe a partial consensus has emerged. Even just here in the US there are folks who are excited about the idea of changing the human genome. Transhumanists, biohackers, etc.
I disagree with some of what CSN has done. I’ve written constructively about that because I see potential risks.
Getting back to this post, I personally and professionally see fetal cell lines as fine research tools, but I know some disagree. The NIH Director’s statements and opinions matter a lot so it’s good to discuss them.
I’m a patient with chronic health problems, I’d be lying if I wasn’t rooting for more stem cell therapy like many other people who read this blog.
That being said, it’s also incredibly dangerous (and unscientific) to have every scientist on one side whether that’s anti or pro stem cell. We need smart people like Dr. Paul and Dr. Jay to push back on everything.
Why? Because that forces the “stem cell accelerationists” to go back to the drawing board and either admit they were wrong and fix it, or try to prove they were right with more research and data. When you zoom out, those are two very good things for patients.
The strongest points are formed when you’re challenged, and that’s how science works (not trying to be snarky). That’s why we have a peer review process for new therapies, so physicians/scientists can’t just declare “this is how it is”, it needs to be torn apart and criticized by experts.
I feel strongly that Dr. Paul is on patients’ side, so I cringe when I see comments on his blog or on Reddit saying he’s anti stem cell therapy. The people who make those arguments tend to be either very uninformed patients who are “sold” on stem cell therapy by some doctor/facebook anecdote, OR a doctor/clinic owner selling the therapy.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, but it needs to be challenged way more than it currently is. I also think the current go-to market system needs an overhaul too, because the current pharmaceutical system doesn’t seem to match stem cell therapy, and that’s holding it back by a lot.
Hopefully that’s the route this goes. Figure out a new approval system based around the new technology, and have experts tearing it apart every step of the way to make sure it’s right.
I say keep holding their feet to the flames like you always have.
@EV Tech,
Thanks for the comment.
I am on the patients’ side, but what some folks misunderstand is that I believe it’s best for most patients to not be given risky, unproven cells. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-stem cell therapy. Look at all the posts I’m doing on promising stem cell trials, etc.
Another core concept for me is that patients should not have to pay to receive experimental/unproven cells.
It’s also important to say that patients with very serious and especially fatal illnesses often seem ready for relatively much higher risk, which is understandable. There are mechanisms for that like expanded access/compassionate use. Things can get complicated though. For example, how serious does an illness have to be to qualify for expanded access? Is it OK for patients to have to pay for that even if the cost is $10K or $20K? The FDA does OK such payments but only to cover the basic cost of the procedure/product. Still, there can be situations where people get taken advantage of that way. It’s frustrating.
I’ve talked/emailed with hundreds of patients over the years. I wouldn’t take the time to do that and have respectful discussions with them, acknowledging their need for some hope, if I wasn’t on their side. I also take time to talk in depth to journalists to help them understand this field. I also talk to the stem cell clinics and suppliers too.
Thanks and yes hope it didn’t come off as me saying you’re anti stem cell, you’re a stem cell biologist, so that’d be shocking 😆