House Republicans want to reshape the National Institutes of Health, citing its work leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic and what they call a lack of transparency since.
What You Need To Know
- House Republicans want to reshape the National Institutes of Health, citing its work leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic and what they call a lack of transparency since
- The House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled Fridaya framework of its proposal, which includes streamlining the number of institutes and centers in the NIH from 27 to 15
- The proposal paints a picture of an agency engaged in risky experiments and resistant to congressional oversight despite allegations of wrongdoing
- The reform plan would continue prohibiting the NIH from conducting or supporting “gain of function” research in countries designated as foreign adversaries and pause existing gain-of-function studies until a policy setting rules for monitoring the research is in place
The House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled Friday a framework of its proposal, which includes streamlining the number of institutes and centers in the NIH from 27 to 15 “to better align the missions of each institute and center and establish more coordinated overarching research goals, agendas, and constituencies.”
“It’s time to move away from a demographic- or disease-specific siloed approach and ensure each institute or center is considering the whole individual and all populations across the entire life span,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., wrote in an opinion piece for Stat.
McMorris Rodgers chairs the Energy Committee while Aderholt heads the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
The proposal paints a picture of an agency engaged in risky experiments and resistant to congressional oversight despite allegations of wrongdoing.
The NIH has not responded to a request for comment from Spectrum News.
The reform plan would continue prohibiting the NIH from conducting or supporting “gain of function” research in countries designated as foreign adversaries and pause existing gain-of-function studies until a policy setting rules for monitoring the research is in place.
In addition, it calls for a national security review into grants involving foreign adversaries.
Gain of function is the practice of enhancing a virus in a lab to study its potential impact in the real world. Some Republican lawmakers have suggested U.S.-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China could have helped create the COVID-19 virus that later leaked from the lab and triggered the worldwide pandemic.
There is no consensus among the U.S. government about the origin of the virus, whether it came from a lab or natural transmission from an animal to a human. And Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former longtime director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said, even if there had been a lab leak in Wuhan, it would have been “molecularly impossible” that an NIH grant contributed to it based on the viruses being studied under it.
Fauci also has insisted the approved research did not meet the regulatory and operative definition of “gain of function.”
But a House Energy Committee investigation concluded last week the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services misled lawmakers about an NIAID experiment involving inserting segments of a lethal strain of mpox, formerly known as monkeypox, into a more transmissible strain of the virus.
The framework also calls for a congressionally mandated commission to be formed to lead a comprehensive review of the NIH’s performance, mission and programs. It also recommends taking steps to ensure NIH officials meet transparency requirements related to finances and standards, implementing policies that allow for “full and robust oversight of investigations into allegations of misconduct” and restoring Congress’ role in funding decisions.
The plan also proposes introducing terms limits — of two five-year terms — for leadership at the NIH’s institutes and centers.
It notes that Fauci led the NIAID for 38 years before retiring in December 2022 and that Dr. Richard Hodes has been the director of the National Institute of Aging for more than 30 years.
“The lack of turnover within NIH’s leadership may contribute to an inability to adapt to evolving expectations in the workplace or to proactively change an existing workplace culture,” the framework says.
Last month, the pandemic subcommittee said its investigation found that a former aide to Fauci used his private email account to shield information from public records laws and government oversight and claimed he destroyed evidence. Fauci has condemned the aide’s actions and said he had no knowledge of them.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are investigating the handling of sexual harassment allegations at the NIH and its grantee institutions.
McMorris Rodgers and Aderholt wrote in Stat that public trust in the agency has been broken.
“It’s time to mend those wounds and rebuild the American people’s trust in the NIH,” they wrote.
“Let us be clear: We support the NIH and the critical role it plays in serving Americans, furthering scientific discovery, and ensuring the U.S. remains the world’s leading pioneer in basic science and biomedical research innovation,” the two House Republicans added. “But historical support for what an agency should or could be cannot prevent us from seeking to build upon past lessons or correct areas that have fallen short.”
The Energy Committee is seeking feedback until Aug. 16 from stakeholders about the reform plan.
