A Medical Researcher’s Ordeal
Introduction to the Issue
Nisha Acharya, an eye doctor and UC San Francisco professor, was at her campus clinic tending patients when a surprising email arrived. Her federal research grant had just been terminated, according to a reporter for the Washington Post, who wondered if Acharya had any comment. She was stunned. Her research, into the workings of the shingles vaccine, didn’t seem remotely controversial. The $3-million grant was the second she’d received, after years of similar work. The National Institutes of Health, which awarded the grant and regularly reviewed Acharya’s performance, had been pleased with all she’d accomplished.
The Reason Behind the Termination
Nevertheless, the NIH tersely informed the university its latest grant was among dozens terminated because the federal government, under President Trump, would no longer support research focused on “why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.” Acharya’s research had nothing to do with any of that. But the mention of “hesitancy” and “uptake” in her grant application — referring to the concern some cornea specialists had about the vaccine for those with shingles in the eye — was apparently all it took to snare Acharya in a dragnet mounted by the Trump administration word police.
The Impact on Research
Acharya fears the Trump administration’s heedless termination of grants will set back scientific and medical research for years to come. Perhaps “hesitancy” and “uptake” generated an AI response, or triggered some on-the-hunt algorithm. Acharya can’t be entirely sure, but there’s no evidence an actual human being, much less any sort of expert on vaccines or shingles, reviewed her grant proposal or assessed her work. She’s gotten no explanation beyond that one, formulaic March 10 email dispatched to the university. “I lost funding immediately,” Acharya said.
The Researcher’s Background
Acharya was in a high school when she reached a fork in the road. Now 50, she pressed her hands into a “V” shape to illustrate the two paths. At the time she was a violinist in the Chicago Youth Symphony, touring the world with the orchestra. She also loved science. Her father was a pharmaceutical chemist. Her mother taught high school math and chemistry. She realized, Acharya said, she wasn’t ready to make the commitment or accept the all-encompassing sacrifice needed to forge a professional career in music. So science became her chosen route.
The Consequences of the Termination
Acharya’s grant was worth $3 million spread over five years of research. She was in the second year of the grant when it was abruptly canceled. The five-year grant paid 35% of Acharya’s salary — she was nearing the end of Year Two — and, while the loss of income isn’t great, she’ll manage. “I’m a professor and I’m a doctor as well,” she said. “I’m not going to lose my job.” Acharya has been forced, however, to lay off two data analysts, and a third research position is in jeopardy. Her voice thickened as she discussed those let go. At one point, she seemed to be fighting back tears.
The Broader Implications
In its zeal to dismantle the federal government — driven more, it seems, by political calculation and a taste for vengeance than any well-thought-out design — the Trump administration has terminated hundreds of grants, ending research focused on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, COVID-19, mental health services and addiction, among other areas of scientific pursuit. Hundreds of millions of dollars that already have been spent are now wasted. The fruits of all that research have been blithely and abruptly lopped off the vine.
Conclusion
The termination of Acharya’s grant and the broader implications of the Trump administration’s actions on scientific research are alarming. The randomness of the administration’s action, and its apparent error, is maddening enough. But it’s also frightening, Acharya said, to think that political considerations are now guiding science and scientific research, erasing years of effort and thwarting potential cures and the chance at future breakthrough treatments. It’s impossible, Acharya said, to calculate the loss. It’s painful to even try. “All the things that might not be learned,” she mused wistfully. “All the potential gains out there” that may go unrealized.
FAQs
Q: What was the reason for the termination of Acharya’s grant?
A: The reason for the termination of Acharya’s grant was the mention of “hesitancy” and “uptake” in her grant application, which was misinterpreted by the Trump administration as being related to vaccine hesitancy.
Q: What was the focus of Acharya’s research?
A: Acharya’s research was focused on the workings of the shingles vaccine, specifically on how it works and its effectiveness in preventing shingles and shingles in the eye.
Q: How will the termination of the grant affect Acharya’s work?
A: The termination of the grant will affect Acharya’s work as she will have to lay off two data analysts, and a third research position is in jeopardy. However, she will manage as she is a professor and a doctor.
Q: What are the broader implications of the Trump administration’s actions on scientific research?
A: The Trump administration’s actions on scientific research have terminated hundreds of grants, ending research focused on various diseases and areas of scientific pursuit, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially setting back scientific and medical research for years to come.
