Bad, Bad Bhattacharya
A recent interview reveals the NIH/CDC Director to be an empty suit — or worse
“The most dangerous people are morons who think they’re intelligent.” — Nerdrotic, March 1, 2026
Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the NIH and now also Director of the CDC, was recently interviewed on the Why Should I Trust You podcast.
Bhattacharya is one of the authors of the notorious Great Barrington Declaration.
In any setting, he comes across as a stuffed shirt MD/PhD wielding statistics, blathering on with false sophistication about mostly nothing, and seeking political power.
Bhattacharya has never practiced medicine, like seemingly everyone now running HHS. While the pandemic was solved by the very vaccines he derided, he’ll never admit that. Scientific truth isn’t his bag.
Parading from podcast to podcast to such an extent that he’s earned the nickname “Podcast Jay,” he finally ended up on one that challenged him a bit. While the interview was far from perfect, it did one important thing — it revealed a person we cannot trust.
Here is what I heard.
He Doesn’t Defend Science
When the most gratuitous excuses were made by politicians to attack universities and pull back funding for research — anti-semitism, the “tyranny” of DEI — Bhattacharya rolled with it, defending his actions or inactions in this conversation. A twit through and through, he keeps harping on the “but funding was not cut” without acknowledging that throttling approved funding through administrative machinations is proving just as effective.
As NIH Director, he had an opportunity to work vigorously to protect science funding from political activism and push approved funds out to working labs and study groups, but he has been a doormat at best. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is apparently holding all the cards, slowing approved funding and killing science under the guise of austerity:
Bhattacharya is useless as an advocate for science within an anti-scientific Administration. It’s more like he’s a co-conspirator.
He’s Willfully Ignorant About Science
Again and again in the podcast, Bhattacharya claims grants for scientific research should only go to what he describes as “actual science” — that is, study proposals with a clear, testable hypothesis and likely short-term benefits to the public.
Science always starts with observations. When there is a surprising observation, or enough observations, you might get to a hypothesis. But getting to a hypothesis from observations may take weeks, months, years, or even generations.
Even then, is it testable? It can take time for the proper test (mathematical, chemical, physical) to be developed. Copernicus made some interesting observations about the planets in the 16th century, but it wasn’t until the 1920s that these led to hypotheses that could be tested and proven. We’re also at the point where there enough settled science to build upon with more observations.
Given the predilection of the MAHA people to use narratives in place of discoveries, placing the demand for a hypothesis — i.e., thesis statement — atop any grant proposal is part of their plan. Observations unencumbered by an approved storyline might upset their narratives. Approving grants with thesis statements that fit with their world view is what they’re really about — imposing an agenda, not discovering the world through rigorous observation and testing.
If Bhattacharya were interested in discovering new things, he’d be happy to fund observations. If science becomes “hypothesis-first,” we’ll only have a religion.
He’s a Little Racist?
This surprised me, but the number of times when asked about higher mortality rates among populations historically marginalized by systemic racism and what is certainly related more to social determinants of health, Bhattacharya started talking about biological differences, mirroring the language of intractable racists. It was surprising and grotesque, but perhaps such pivots help him fit in with his new political friends.
He Takes No Responsibility
Bhattacharya repeatedly dissembled when the hosts used the shorthand “you” to refer to HHS, the NIH, the CDC, or the Administration and their actions. He immediately went into, “It wasn’t me, actually” mode, failing entirely to display the kind of leadership responsibility a normal adult in a high-profile role of import and responsibility would, knowing and accepting he was representing an entire governmental branch.
He Has No Courage
Bhattacharya is a dissembler and punk. He is not helping science, not standing up for anything, only cares about himself, and has neither the skills nor disposition to lead or to be in a government leadership position.
Of course, this is all par for the course at HHS in these dim days for science. Bhattacharya — now head of NIH and CDC — is just another double-talking sycophant working to undermine the US scientific establishment. He’s also a bit of a whiny baby.
I trust him not at all after this interview.