The War Keeps Raging Against Science

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines how the Trump administration and HHS/NIH are reshaping U.S. science through grant cuts, censorship concerns, and new policy restrictions, using a milkshake study as an example of politically inconvenient research. It argues these actions threaten biomedical, climate, LGBTQ, and COVID-related research, may trigger brain drain, and could ultimately weaken both public health and the economy.

Main Topics: Milkshake study censorship at NIH (Priority: 5/5): Kevin Hall’s NIH study on ultra-processed milkshakes found no dopamine surge like addictive drugs, but he says NIH blocked interviews, altered responses, and quashed publicity to avoid findings that conflicted with RFK Jr.’s anti-sugar messaging. Mass NIH and federal science grant cuts (Priority: 5/5): The administration has terminated around 1,500 NIH projects worth more than $7 billion, targeting research on DEI, gender ideology, vaccine hesitancy, COVID, and studies that might influence public opinion. Targeted suppression of climate and LGBTQ research (Priority: 4/5): Funding has been pulled or narrowed for climate-related work, NOAA projects, trans health research, HIV prevention, and studies framed as supporting gender identity, while one narrowly focused trans regret study was singled out for support. COVID origin politics and gain-of-function executive order (Priority: 4/5): The show connects the administration’s lab-leak framing of COVID to an executive order pausing federal dangerous gain-of-function research for 120 days, with scientists warning the definition is too vague and could chill legitimate virology and cancer-related work. Science funding as an economic engine (Priority: 5/5): Economist Andrew Fieldhouse explains that public investment in science historically produces large returns, with research suggesting every $1 in federal science R&D yields about $1.70 in GDP later and may raise average American income substantially. Global health, long COVID, and backlash (Priority: 4/5): Cuts to international aid and long COVID research sparked public and congressional pushback, leading to some restored funding, but researchers say the broader pattern remains fear-driven and destabilizing. Brain drain and scientific morale (Priority: 5/5): Researchers report fear, self-censorship, and plans to leave the U.S.; Nature polling found 75% of respondents considering leaving, suggesting long-term damage to U.S. scientific leadership.

Key Arguments: The NIH milkshake study suggests ultra-processed food is not automatically addictive in the same neurochemical way as drugs, undermining RFK Jr.’s sugar-as-poison narrative. NIH and HHS actions around the milkshake study looked like censorship because the agency denied an interview, blocked a press release, and revised answers to soften results. The administration has made unprecedented cuts to science funding, terminating about 1,500 NIH grants and targeting politically sensitive areas rather than scientific merit. Climate, vaccine hesitancy, and transgender health research are being restricted through political framing, not by standard peer review or demonstrated lack of value. A new gain-of-function order may be overly broad; scientists worry it could halt legitimate research on pathogens, antibiotic resistance, and even virus-based cancer therapies. Public science funding has historically generated economic returns and private-sector innovation; the idea that the market will simply replace federal science funding is unsupported. Reducing science funding risks long-term economic harm, lower wages, weaker public health preparedness, and fewer discoveries. The current climate of fear is already driving scientists to consider leaving the U.S., risking a lasting brain drain.

Data Points: NIH projects terminated: ~1,500 - Number of NIH grants reportedly canceled under the current administration Funding cut: more than $7 billion - Estimated research money lost from terminated NIH projects Long COVID funding restored: about a week later - Timing between public outcry and reinstatement of some long COVID initiatives Potential global deaths from aid cuts: 25 million - Researchers’ estimate of deaths over 15 years if U.S. global health funding were fully pulled back US COVID deaths recently: more than 6,000 - CDC-reported deaths in the U.S. over the past three months Science R&D return: $1.70 per $1 spent - Estimated GDP return from federal non-defense R&D spending over time Average American income impact: about $10,000 poorer - Estimated long-term effect if federal science funding were cut by 50% Nature survey respondents: 1,600 - Scientists polled about whether they were considering leaving the country Scientists considering leaving the U.S.: 75% - Share of Nature poll respondents thinking about emigrating Long COVID confirmation hearing answer: Yes - RFK Jr. said he would prioritize long COVID research at his confirmation hearing Gain-of-function pause: 120 days - Duration of the new executive order’s pause on federally funded dangerous gain-of-function research Funding ban for violations: up to 5 years - Penalty for scientists who disobey the gain-of-function order

Pivotal Quotes: "it felt like his work was being censored to fit, quote, preconceived narratives of my agency's leadership about ultra-processed food addiction" — Kevin Hall: Hall’s explanation for why he quit after the NIH interfered with communications about the milkshake study "The NIH is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities" — HHS/NIH: Official justification for cutting grants in areas the administration deems low priority or politically objectionable "If you think of the economic costs of shutting down the U.S. economy early on during the COVID pandemic, if you can invest in public health and epidemiology to prevent that, the economic rate of return on that is astronomical" — Andrew Fieldhouse: Economic rationale for public investment in science and public health

Implications: The episode suggests U.S. science is entering a politically driven contraction that could suppress research, chill speech, slow innovation, and weaken public health. If the cuts continue, listeners may see fewer breakthroughs, less preparedness, and a significant brain drain.