The nomination of Robert Kennedy as Secretary of Health in the United States is causing discussion. The extreme positions on some issues, vaccines first and foremost, create alarm in the scientific community. However, other positions of the new minister chosen by Donald Trump should not be overlooked.
“In America it has always been a fairly bipartisan position to say that we need to do more for research. However, also due to the problems that have arisen with Covid, in recent years biomedical research has suffered greatly and continues to suffer. I do not I have an idea of what will happen now. The role of a president is to give a strategic imprint towards this sector too. It’s not that I’ve heard Donald Trump talk about it as a priority Biden for research, I honestly can’t find any good things to say. So far he hasn’t had adequate support. Of course, everything can get worse, but we’ll see”, he adds.
“The problem of American nutrition - he continues – is an important problem, true, never faced before. It causes an enormous amount of health problems: obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases. These things are very serious. And if the problem is addressed seriously now – because then there is obviously always the issue of economic interests – then so be it. If we then start talking about nonsense the conversation changes, but I hope not. Addressing the issue of American food, both from one point of view qualitative than quantitative, it’s a good idea, it’s not wrong at all. The vaccine controversy? It is clear that vaccines work and are controlled very well. If the anti-Covid has caused some problems, we need to see what happens in the long term. The problem is that these cannot be ideological positions, that is, they are against or for”, but must be based on data.
Iavarone tries to explain what has changed compared to the past: “Biomedical research in the States is mainly financed by the NIH (National Institutes of Health), but in recent years the funding has been greatly reduced, the grants have dropped both in number and value and have become increasingly hyper-competitive, and being able to get this federal funding is really difficult. This situation has also caused the fact that in American universities many young people, instead of remaining in the academic world as they would if there were important opportunities, decide to go into industry in the world of Biotech, of Big Pharma. The picture is also worsened by the fact that in recent years there has been a notable increase in inflation in America, which is also one of the main reasons why Trump won.”
Inflation, continues the scientist, “naturally has had and continues to have an important effect on research too. If prices increase, people have to be paid more and with grants under current conditions you can’t do much. The costs of research, too, are increasing more and more”, also driven ”by new technologies, by AI”. The fact that the sector is now suffering “has an enormous implication, because it becomes more difficult to attract good people even from abroad. They now find financial and organizational support in other countries”.
“I arrived in America 30 years ago – recalls Iavarone – today I chose Miami for many reasons, one of which is that there is a great opportunity for fund raising. If I think about the beginning, I remember that all those who wanted to do research had to to come to the United States even just for a while, because there was no other place where you could really have important experiences. The attraction was the real strength.” Now, he concludes, “that desire to have an experience in the USA, which before was almost an obligation, is no longer so strong. People want to go to London, Japan, Germany, Spain and we are having more and more difficulties. It’s a discussion we often have with colleagues. The reason is that the environmental and economic conditions have changed enormously here.”
How can the federal government improve funding for biomedical research in light of current challenges?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Dr. Iavarone, Health Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Iavarone. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the implications of Robert Kennedy’s nomination as Secretary of Health. This has certainly sparked a robust debate within both the scientific and public communities.
Dr. Iavarone: Good afternoon! It’s a pleasure to be here. Yes, Kennedy’s nomination is indeed stirring a lot of conversations, especially regarding his stance on vaccines and public health issues.
Editor: Let’s delve into the controversial aspects first. His past views on vaccines have alarmed many in the scientific community. Given that vaccines have a well-established track record of safety and efficacy, what concerns do you have about his appointment?
Dr. Iavarone: The concern primarily lies in the ideological polarization surrounding vaccines. Vaccines have been crucial in controlling outbreaks and preventing diseases; however, if the narrative shifts toward skepticism, it could undermine public health initiatives. Public communications from the Secretary’s office need to be grounded in science, not ideology.
Editor: That brings us to another dimension of health policy—the ongoing challenges in biomedical research funding in the U.S. You mentioned in your previous statements how federal funding has decreased. Can you explain how this affects young researchers in the field?
Dr. Iavarone: Certainly. With the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding dropping, many grants are not only fewer in number but also more competitive. As a result, young scientists face significant barriers to remaining in academia. This has led many to opt for careers in biotech or pharmaceutical companies, which offer more immediate job security and funding opportunities, rather than pursuing innovative research that could serve public health in the long term.
Editor: That paints a troubling picture. Would you say the government’s lack of focus on biomedical research is a bipartisan issue, or do specific parties bear more responsibility?
Dr. Iavarone: Historically, increased spending on research has been a bipartisan issue, but there seems to be a lack of urgency from the current administration to prioritize this sector. While I don’t want to assign blame solely to one party, it’s clear that without the presidential push for innovation and research funding, we risk stagnation in critical health advancements.
Editor: Speaking of health advancements, you noted that the issue of American nutrition hasn’t received adequate attention until now. How significant do you think Kennedy’s focus on nutrition could be?
Dr. Iavarone: It can be very significant. The American diet contributes to numerous chronic illnesses—obesity, diabetes, heart disease. If Kennedy is serious about tackling nutritional quality and accessibility, it could lead to meaningful improvements in public health. Yet, it’s important to approach this without falling prey to the economic pressures of food industries. Evidence-based policy must guide discussions around nutrition.
Editor: Shifting gears, do you think Kennedy’s controversial views on some public health issues will overshadow his potential positive contributions?
Dr. Iavarone: There’s definitely a risk of overshadowing, especially if the conversation becomes too polarized. If we focus exclusively on contentious issues like vaccines, we might miss the opportunity for positive changes in areas like nutrition and overall health policy reform. It’s critical for Kennedy to redirect the dialogue toward the sound science that can unite us.
Editor: Before we wrap up, what are your hopes for the future of health policy under Kennedy’s leadership?
Dr. Iavarone: My hope is that we can bridge the gaps created by misinformation and political divides. The health of the American population should be our highest priority. If Kennedy can align his policies with scientific evidence while fostering a climate of constructive dialogue, there’s potential for progress in both research funding and public health outcomes.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Iavarone. Your insights have certainly shed light on the potential paths forward for U.S. health policy under Robert Kennedy’s leadership, as well as the challenges that lie ahead.
Dr. Iavarone: Thank you for having me! Let’s hope for a productive dialogue in the coming months.