Kevin Hall, a scientist at NIH, posted this on twitter earlier today:
After 21 years at my dream job, I’m very sad to announce my early retirement from the National Institutes of Health.
My life’s work has been to scientifically study how our food environment affects what we eat, and how what we eat affects our physiology. Lately, I’ve focused on unravelling the reasons why diets high in ultra-processed food are linked to epidemic proportions of chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. Our research leads the world on this topic.
Given recent bipartisan goals to prevent diet-related chronic diseases, and new agency leadership professing to prioritize scientific investigation of ultra-processed foods, I had hoped to expand our research program with ambitious plans to more rapidly and efficiently determine how our food is likely making Americans chronically sick.
Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science. Specifically, I experienced censorship in the reporting of our research because of agency concerns that it did not appear to fully support preconceived narratives of my agency’s leadership about ultra-processed food addiction.
I was hoping this was an aberration. So, weeks ago I wrote to my agency’s leadership expressing my concerns and requested time to discuss these issues, but I never received a response. Without any reassurance there wouldn’t be continued censorship or meddling in our research, I felt compelled to accept early retirement to preserve health insurance for my family. (Resigning later in protest of any future meddling or censorship would result in losing that benefit.)
Due to very tight deadlines to make this decision, I don’t yet have plans for my future career. The NIH has been a wonderful place because it allows scientists to take risks, form unique collaborations, and do studies difficult to conduct elsewhere. I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished and I’m fortunate to have had such wonderful colleagues and scientific collaborators.
I hope to someday return to government service and lead a research program that will continue to provide gold-standard science to make Americans healthy.
This scientific brain drain is so depressing.
I recommend reading this fabulous piece by Rick Perlstein from before the election discussing science and politics, specifically the way the right sees it, in light of the unprecedented Scientific American endorsement of Kamala Harris. Let’s just say that any reticence among scientists to speak out in service of some norms that they should remains apolitical is misplaced. (Also read what he says about norms in general, pointing out that liberal resistance or advances almost always requires the destruction of certain norms that serve as obstacles to liberal governance. Very interesting.)