At his confirmation hearing last week, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was asked about validation research by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00A follow-up and then a closing statement.
00:03Again, thank you for being here.
00:05You said something I'm trying to square.
00:08First in context, we know that only about one-fifth of NIH applications are funded,
00:13and you have spoken about improving that, particularly for younger investigators, which
00:17by the way, I think your plan, just on the face of it, looks fantastic.
00:20So thank you for thinking creatively about that.
00:26And you've also, I think, correctly said, we need to be putting more money into cutting-edge
00:30research, which may fail.
00:33It's cutting-edge, right?
00:34But what's the alternative?
00:36But what I don't – so what I'm trying to square with that is the extra dollars
00:40for validation.
00:42With all the kind of caveats you put, you'd have to have the full cooperation of the person
00:46who studies being validated, and you'd have to have the same circumstances and the same
00:53genetic makeup and the same this and that and that and this.
00:56So it seems like the validation push would put more pressure on both the cutting-edge
01:02research priority and the young investigators finding it easier to get money.
01:09So knowing that you've thought about that, how do you think about that?
01:12Sure.
01:13Senator, I think of that validation work as central to doing good science.
01:18Any portfolio that doesn't have that kind of validation built into it is not going to
01:24be reliable.
01:25So even if you do cutting-edge research and it's not validated, you're not going to
01:27have – you're not going to get the advances.
01:29So what is the difference between doing the validation research and kind of what you have
01:34criticized, that we sometimes do the same thing over and over again?
01:37Well, so the difference is that validation research is focused on the particular results
01:42that a scientist may have.
01:44I publish a study and you check my results.
01:46You get the same result as me.
01:47Incremental science is, you propose a study that is like epsilon away from what already
01:54is known.
01:55And you do that.
01:56Now inherently, if epsilon away fails, it calls into question the original premise,
02:01correct?
02:02Right.
02:03But it's much easier to be certain about research that's epsilon away from the frontier
02:08to work versus like big ideas in different directions that might make big advances.
02:15Any research portfolio has to have lots of different approaches to this.
02:21I think the key to me is making sure that if early-care researchers, researchers with
02:27nontraditional ideas about hypotheses, for instance, like with the example of Alzheimer's
02:32we already talked about, those get support that are in the portfolio.
02:38Some of those won't fail.
02:40Some of those will succeed.
02:41And the ones that succeed can make big advances.
02:43I don't think that the validation research, validation is just a check.
02:49Is the research that I did, do you find the same thing?
02:54That tends not to get support in the scientific community.
02:56I think that's a mistake.
02:58The scientific community ought to support that.
03:00The NIH ought to support that.
03:02That way the entire research portfolio as a whole becomes more reliable because we know
03:06that it's been validated by independent teams.
03:08I don't object to the validation research.
03:11It does seem it's going to be a tension, so I'll look forward to you resolving that.
03:15Senator, I look forward to working with you on this.
03:17That would be great.
03:19Let me just then conclude.
03:23The issue of autism just is one of those things that we all think about.
03:28I want to note that last year Congress reauthorized the Autism Cares Act, and Senator Collins
03:33and the HELP Committee were those that did that, and the law coordinates the federal
03:38autism research and is implemented by NIH.
03:42I look forward to working with you on that.
03:44One thing that continues to concern me as I've listened to this conversation, there's
03:49an opportunity cost.
03:51If we continue to plow the barren ground of something which has already been validated
03:55multiple times, that there is not a connection between vaccination and autism, we don't have
04:03the money to go after the real thing.
04:06You said something which just, I mean, just bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, I just thought
04:09was so good, that you have faith that a well-done research that provides answers will be convincing
04:17to people.
04:18Well, we've already had that for the vaccination.
04:21What we need is the well-done research finding the true reason for autism, and that's what
04:27the hope is for the people with autism.
04:30If we're pissing away money over here, that's that less money that we have to actually go
04:35after the true reason.
04:37You're an economist as well as an MD.
04:40You know this.
04:42And so I look forward to, I mean, the opportunity cost of wasting money on one more thing that's
04:47been proven exhaustively, denying the opportunity to find the real reason would be a tragedy
04:55for everyone who has to deal with autism, which is all of us.
04:59Senator, I share that passion that you have for finding the real, the cause of autism.
05:06That's where most, that's where the vast, vast majority of effort ought to go.
05:10We want answers.
05:12Parents want answers.
05:13Their kids are suffering, and the NIH ought to be doing the research that provides those
05:18answers.
05:19That's the most important thing.
05:20Yes.
05:21Well, thank you again for being here.
05:23I admire your sons for behaving, being so well-behaved.
05:27I'm sure the presence of their mother right next to them had some influence over that.
05:32This concludes our hearing.
05:33For any senators who wish to ask additional questions, questions for the record will be
05:37due tomorrow at 5 p.m.
05:38We're through.