Overhauling the NIH: A Prescription for Reform
Exposing misallocated funds, hidden agendas, and the urgent need for change
Over the past four years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has gained widespread attention because of COVID-19. This formidable organization houses 27 specialized medical institutes, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), among others. The NIH operates with an annual budget of approximately $50 Billion of taxpayer money (in addition to an undisclosed amount provided by the pharmaceutical industry). Dr. Fauci acted as the director of the NIAID for nearly 40 years and drew an annual base salary of $419,000—not accounting for any additional income generated by industry patents on vaccines and processes.
According to their website NIH claims that “the goals of the agency are:
to foster fundamental creative discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health;
to develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources that will ensure the Nation's capability to prevent disease;
to expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation's economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research; and
to exemplify and promote the highest level of scientific integrity, public accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science.
With over 40 years of experience as a pharmacist, naturopathic doctor, and researcher— alongside serving as an endowed university professor teaching in both medical and pharmacy schools — I offer the educated perspective that the NIH has made little progress in achieving its stated goals, while wasting a significant amount of time and taxpayer resources. Here are a few examples:
One group of researchers I know receives approximately $20 – 25 million a year in NIH grants, culminating in roughly $250 million in total to date. With this level of funding, the director wields considerable power at the University. He has the capacity to hire and fire people at his discretion, arguably assembling a high-performing and successful research team. However, this group’s publishing record is unremarkable. Little, if any, of their work has been shared in publications or conferences.
After 12 years of receiving millions of dollars in research grants from the NIH, the results of their investigations have never changed any clinical practices.
In other words, $250 million in taxpayer-funded money has not helped a single patient live better, become healthier, or improve their future outcomes.
Conversely, another scientist I know discovered crucial lifesaving and disease-improving information. Although he has published extensively on this research, the NIH has failed to facilitate conferences or widespread dissemination of this transformative research for clinical applications. As an integrative practitioner, I have applied his groundbreaking discoveries to great effect, especially with autistic patients and those with unresolved inflammatory conditions. However, my access to these discoveries — and their lifesaving applications for my patients — stems largely from our professional association, as the NIH has made no effort to broadly circulate this information.
My personal experience is even more frustrating. Years ago, I developed a highly successful Drug Education Program for schools which was especially impactful in very high-risk schools located in Los Angeles and many other counties in California. During the program’s development, we involved 100 students who provided feedback on various aspects such as topics, their relevance, illustrations, requirements, and material’s comprehensibility. Additionally, 25 teachers collaborated to craft the curriculum teacher guide, providing valuable insight into the content and suggesting effective ways to engage the intended audience and encourage their participation.
During the Clinton administration, I had prominent friend in the White House who really liked my program and who had been a top administrator at the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). He arranged for me to meet with a NIDA program officer. In turn, this officer explained that I needed mentoring since I had never received an NIH grant. He kindly arranged for me to call an experienced researcher who was the recipient of many NIDA drug education grants. I contacted this person, offered to pay a consulting fee, and went to visit him. In the process, I learned NIDA had granted him over $20 million to develop a drug education program. Curiously, he seemed angry that my program was being used by thousands of students and hundreds of teachers, while he had no “buy-in” for people to use his “highly researched program.”
My program was the product of hundreds of hours working with my target population, whereas his program resulted from combing through research journals, taking ideas from university researchers ensconced in their ivory towers, and telling people what they needed, all without truly interacting with the people he professed to want to help.
I quipped, “I guess my program is used because I give the customer what they want.” He retorted with a scowl, “NO, you are supposed to come from above with knowledge and give people what they need.” I contemplated correcting him with, “you mean what you think inner-city children need based on what you have read.”
Now that I’ve explained the difference between “in the cloud” versus “on the ground” research and programs, let’s look at the process and funding:
An NIH grant takes many hours, days, and weeks to write, it is comparable to writing a Ph.D. thesis. I was advised to apply for a SBIR grant, intended for small businesses with innovative ideas. After weeks of writing, with edits by experienced grant writers, I was rejected.
With rejection comes feedback to rewrite, correct, and re-submit. By coincidence, a good friend and colleague chaired the review of SBIR grants for NIDA. After assessing the situation, she excused herself from reviewing my grant request but instead helped me rewrite it. After weeks rewriting to their template and addressing questions, much to our chagrin, my request was again denied.
Undaunted, I resolved to conduct the research myself and continue aiding children in need. Funding for school drug education programs came from the U.S. Department of Education, and thanks to a fortuitous relationship, I had the opportunity to meet with U.S. Education Secretary Dick Riley. At the meeting’s outset, the Director of the Drug Education Department, conspicuously declined to join us, citing an imperative NIH and NIDA meeting happening simultaneously. Everyone was very confused as to why he chose another agency over a meeting with his superior. . . but his motives soon became apparent.
I discovered that NIH/NIDA had poured hundreds of millions of dollars into drug education programs that had been met with widespread disinterest, subsequently withering in disuse. In order to rescue their failed programs from languishing in a bureaucratic wasteland, they collaborated with the Department of Education to devise a “Best Practices” list—whose programs were the ONLY ones schools were allowed to buy—evaluated by the very “experts” who received the NIH/NIDA grants (in other words, they fraudulently evaluated each other’s programs and split the available $600 million in funding).
Regrettably, my program—among 500 others—fell short, while 100% of NIDA programs earned a coveted spot on the list. To contextualize, non-NIDA grant recipients had a mere 6% chance of inclusion. I couldn't help but wonder whether the Director of the Drug Education Department benefited from this funding practice.
In addition to their obvious cronyism and corruption, the very same Ivory tower scientists who evaluated my work and that of the other 500 rejected applicants made extremely derogatory comments about the inner-city youth their programs were supposedly designed to help. Here is a sample of what they said:
“This curriculum would NOT be suited for the type of functional non-readers typically produced by our current television (visually oriented) culture and especially for students at higher risk.”
“This curriculum tries to address a huge host of concepts in 15-20 seassions. Especially for higher risk students who may not even understand the basics of elementary biological science”
“Especially with it’s “across the curriculum component” it is integrated into the typical missions of most schools today. Perhaps is also its biggest negative…… the curriculum capitulates to the typical perceive need to “focus more on academics than on readiness to learn”. In other words they are saying teaching economics, biology, mathematics, and history across the curriculum, is a waste of time but teaching kids who they perceive are illiterate and the do not even have the capability of knowing HOW to learn. But from above we should be teaching this!”
I collaborated with and taught young drug dealers in high-risk neighborhoods for fifteen years. Remarkably intelligent, they routinely outmatched the "elite" grant reviewers in insight, understanding, and common sense—and I am certain that my program made a positive difference in their lives. To this day, several of them reach out on Facebook or Linked-In to let me know they have created good lives for themselves, despite their perilous upbringings and surroundings. If roles were reversed, it's highly unlikely that the sheltered academics, passing judgment on these children, would have survived such circumstances.
Based on my firsthand experience, reform at the NIH is imperative. In its current state, it not only fails to improve medicine, but it also wastes taxpayer money and squanders the brilliant minds of scientists.
In my next article, I will outline the fallacies concerning the FDA and show how this agency has failed to serve the public while instead, benefitting its leadership. Subscribe here to view when I publish next:
If you are new to The Sage Professor, check out my first article here:
May God bless your hard work, humility, fortitude, caring, perseverance, patience, and your mind to keep doing great things!
Thanks for your work and sharing. It truly is those who understand who you are helping and getting insight from them that change happens.