Context:

The Senate Appropriations Committee questioned Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.), regarding significant cuts to research funding under the Trump administration. Dr. Bhattacharya distanced himself from responsibility, attributing budget proposals to a collaboration between Congress and the administration, and cited ongoing litigation for not discussing specific details. Senators expressed frustration over unclear decision-making processes and the impact of funding restrictions on universities like Harvard and Northwestern. The proposed $18 billion budget reduction drew bipartisan criticism for potentially hindering medical advancements and risking the U.S.'s competitive standing in global research. Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledged the need for agreements to unfreeze funds and introduced an appeals process for affected scientists, although specifics on resolving funding issues remain vague.

Dive Deeper:

• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya faced criticism from the Senate for not taking responsibility for research funding cuts, attributing decisions to a collaboration between Congress and the Trump administration, while citing ongoing litigation as a reason for withholding specific details.

• Senators, including Tammy Baldwin and Dick Durbin, expressed confusion and frustration over who was making decisions at the N.I.H., particularly regarding the freezing of grant payments and the reduction of the agency's budget by nearly 40 percent.

• The proposed budget cuts, part of the Trump administration's broader efforts to decrease spending, were criticized by both Democratic and Republican senators for potentially delaying medical advancements and compromising the U.S.'s position in global research.

• Dr. Bhattacharya indicated that the N.I.H. was still committed to research on critical diseases and mentioned the possibility of reaching agreements to unfreeze research funding for affected universities, though specifics on these agreements were not provided.

• The N.I.H.'s recent actions, including ending over 1,300 grant awards and delaying more than 1,000 projects, have been criticized by employees for being ideologically driven and lacking scientific staff input, prompting the introduction of an appeals process for funding cuts.