Viewpoint From our Founding Director
This op-ed originally appeared in MedPage Today.
By Donald Ingber, M.D., Ph.D.
I was on the frontlines when COVID-19 hit and it felt like a surprise attack. Many academic research departments closed, but the Wyss Institute at Harvard, which I head, moved into high gear. We raced to develop new ways to manufacture nasal swabs, create diagnostics that could rapidly detect SARS-CoV-2 with high sensitivity and specificity, and identify existing drugs that could be rapidly repurposed to confront this growing threat. Tension was high and fear was widespread; none of us knew what was coming next.
Last week I found myself on the frontlines again for another surprise attack. But this time, we were attacked from behind by our own forces. I was among the first scientists at Harvard to receive stop-work orders from the government, demanding that I immediately cease research on two contracts funded in my lab by America’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). BARDA is responsible for developing and stockpiling medical countermeasures against potential biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear threats for the defense of our nation.
One of my projects used human organ chips — small micro-devices containing hollow channels lined by living cells that recapitulate human organ-level structures and pathophysiological responses — to model acute radiation syndrome in lungs, intestines, bone marrow, and lymph nodes. We also use this approach in combination with artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced discovery tools to identify new radiation countermeasure drugs, which could potentially help those exposed to nuclear radiation or mitigate side-effects of radiation treatment for cancer patients.
The second project was also administered by BARDA, but funded by NASA, and it focused on using organ chips to build living “avatars” of astronauts by lining these devices with their cells. The chips were to be flown on future space missions alongside the astronauts to enable mechanistic studies on how radiation and microgravity alter human physiology, in this case, hematopoietic function in the bone marrow.
There are few FDA-approved radiation countermeasure drugs, and those that exist only counter the effects of radiation on blood cell formation. In our project, we identified drugs with the potential to protect many different organs against radiation injury — yet we were stopped in our tracks. The cancellation was even more baffling because the Trump administration is proposing to build nuclear reactors across the country to support the increasing energy needs of the AI economy, which will greatly increase the chance of radiation accidents. They also aspire to send a manned mission to Mars; this can’t happen unless we devise a way to protect the astronauts against lethal levels of high-energy radiation.
You might ask why the government would abruptly withdraw funding for my lab’s projects, and why the NIH and other agencies are canceling contracts and grants in research laboratories nationwide. At Harvard, the Trump administration is holding science hostage because they claim that the university is failing to address antisemitism on campus, and they appear to be using this as leverage to force Harvard to submit to its demands, including overhauling hiring practices and reporting international students who break rules. (The reality is that Harvard has already made major changes, including in leadership, to combat the antisemitic activities that occurred in Fall 2023 tied to the Hamas-Israel war.)
The government’s claim of fighting antisemitism appears to be a pretext to take away academic freedom and instill its own ideology. Not long after the government shared its ultimatum letter with Harvard, the university leadership issued a statement rejecting the demands. Just 5 hours later, I received stop-work orders on my two projects, similar to many of my Harvard colleagues.
The government’s unrelenting attack on science and medical research does not stop here. The NIH, FDA, and CDC have already experienced dramatic funding and workforce cuts, which will slow discovery, approval of new drugs, and efficient response to healthcare emergencies. More cuts are likely. Even more shocking is the news that a U.S. attorney has reached out to several major scientific journals, including CHEST, demanding an explanation for how they ensure “viewpoint diversity.” Meanwhile, I fear HHS may move toward decisions and policy based on ideology, rather than evidence-based science.
This is all too familiar. At a time when American scientists were developing the modern field of genetics, which led to the biotechnology revolution, something very different happened in the Soviet Union. Backed by Joseph Stalin and later Nikita Khrushchev, scientist Trofim Lysenko was able to promote pseudo-scientific theories based on Lamarckian inheritance, which rejected established genetic principles. This strangled academic freedom, resulting in long-lasting damage to Soviet biology and medicine. This is one reason why Russia still lags so far behind us in biotechnology to this day.
This cautionary tale tells us much about how political interference and battles over ideology can stifle scientific advances, which are essential to improve the care of our patients. Many have asked me whether Harvard made the right decision in standing up to the government’s demands. While I did my undergraduate, graduate, and medical training at Yale, I am very proud to be a Harvard faculty member. Anyone who cares for patients needs to take up this fight to retain academic freedom and to speak out to protect science and ensure our ability to innovate based on fact, rather than opinion.