Hail a curative for a social sickness
Stanford surgeon on standby to remove DEI-like social tumours at the heart of the health policy establishment..
This cutting-edge appointment of the author of the best Covid-era policy proposal is a good signal of the governance priorities of the new administration. It is important not just for the NIH itself. Corrosive colour-based and race-based rather than merit-based staffing priorities in all state-provided services can be traced back to the universities that train the professionals who design the staffing, budget, and policy priorities.
Tyler Cowen grasps the wrong end of the stick when he writes —
“My main worry is simply that NIH staff will not trust their new director.”
But how can the ordinary citizen “trust” NIH staff when it is known that they are not being appointed on merit? John D. Sailer, Senior Fellow at the National Association of Scholars and director of higher education policy at the Manhattan Institute explains. It is a thoughtful and revealing article. Social science needs to be at the forefront.
MGH
HERE IS THE ARTICLE FROM THE ‘WALL STREET JOURNAL’ OPINION PAGE
Jay Bhattacharya Can Bring Science Back To NIH: The agency has created career pathways built on race rather than merit.
By John Sailer Nov. 27, 2024
The distorted priorities of American academia often have roots in the federal government. The National Institutes of Health pours millions of dollars into universities for large-scale hiring efforts based on diversity, equity and inclusion. Jay Bhattacharya, President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the NIH, can put an end to it.
The NIH’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation program, or First, bars universities who receive its grants from hiring on the basis of race, but my reporting shows that many schools do it anyway. In one galling example, a grant recipient stated bluntly via email: “I don’t want to hire white men for sure.” The First program is modeled on the NIH’s own “distinguished scholars program.” Through a Freedom of Information Act request, I acquired records that show how the NIH makes these selections. Application reviewers repeatedly highlight candidates’ sex and minority status and favor those fluent in the vocabulary of progressive identity politics.
On paper, the program doesn’t involve racial preference. As Hannah Valantine, former NIH Chief Officer for Academic Workforce Diversity, described it in a lecture, the program aims to “change the culture” by recruiting “a critical mass” of scientists “committed to diversity, to inclusion, to equity, and to mentoring.” “Notice that I did not say any particular racial, ethnic or group or gender,” Ms. Valantine added, “because legally we cannot.”
Yet reviewers repeatedly mention candidates’ sex and underrepresented minority, or URM, status. “URM scientist,” “female physician,” “URM female scientist,” “male URM”—the records include more than a dozen such references. The NIH redacted portions of the records it deemed personal information. The occasional missing adjective stands out: “Female [redacted] physician‐scientist,” “Male [redacted] scientist,” “[Redacted] female physician,” and so on.
Reviewers played down applicants’ merit as scientists. “Excellent scientist but not particularly distinguished in the area of diversity in science,” one reviewer wrote of an applicant identified as a potential fit for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Assessing scholars for their commitment to social justice inevitably hampers the scientific mission of the NIH. One review comment says of a candidate: “Appears not to have a fully developed and equitably centered understanding of diversity.” This sort of criteria favors scientists who share an activist’s vision for higher education, prioritizing ideology over science.
In some cases, that ideological lens becomes explicit. One reviewer praises a candidate’s diversity and equity “activism.” Another applicant receives praise for understanding the “historical context of structural racism” and the role of “intersectionality of multiple minority statuses.”
Mr. Bhattacharya has promised to “reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust again.” The NIH’s First and distinguished-scholars programs illustrate his challenge. Federal grantmaking agencies, like universities, have created well-funded career pathways for academics who espouse an activist progressive vision. Mr. Bhattacharya should shut those pathways down and empower scientists who remain vigilantly committed to the pursuit of truth.
My thanks to the Wall Street Journal, and conservative Condorito
Dr Michael G. Heller
