The 'Science' Would Never Hide Anything?

The National Institutes of Health is a rogue agency. Since the pandemic’s beginning, the NIH has put up roadblocks to Freedom of Information Act requests, forcing people to sue the agency until they disclose documents, which they then heavily redact. Meanwhile House investigators have accused the agency of withholding documents and are threatening NIH with a subpoena. Revelations continued unfolding yesterday when reporter Jimmy Tobias released a tranche of NIH emails he got from a public records request. Buried on page 189, I found the NIH’s liaison with Congress explaining to her NIH superiors how they would avoid answering questions sent to them in a letter from the chairs of several House committees. “We are going to draft a response to the letter that doesn’t actually answer the questions in the letter but rather presents a narrative of what happened at a high level…” wrote NIH associate director for legislative policy, Adrienne Hallett, in a July 2020 email. “The Committee may come back for other documents but I’m hoping to run out the clock.” “Sounds like a good plan,” responded Francis Collins, then director of the NIH. “Thanks so much Adrienne!” replied Michael Lauer, the NIH’s deputy director of extramural research. “I’ll draft something today.” Copied in on the exchange is Lawrence Tabak, the current director of the NIH.

ChatGPT

The situation you've outlined suggests significant issues with transparency and accountability within the NIH, especially in the context of the pandemic. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests: The NIH's handling of FOIA requests and the subsequent heavy redactions could undermine public trust. Transparency is crucial for maintaining accountability, particularly in public health matters.

2. Congressional Oversight: The response from NIH to congressional inquiries, as described, raises concerns about whether the agency is fully cooperating with legislative oversight. The strategy to "run out the clock" on questions could be seen as an attempt to avoid addressing potentially difficult issues.

3. Internal Communications: The email exchange you mentioned, if authentic, indicates a deliberate effort to manage how information is presented to Congress. This approach might be viewed as prioritizing narrative control over genuine transparency.

4. Institutional Response: The involvement of high-level officials like Francis Collins and Michael Lauer in these communications suggests that the strategy to manage congressional inquiries was not limited to lower-level staff.

These developments highlight the importance of continuing to scrutinize how public health agencies handle requests for information and respond to oversight. Such scrutiny is essential for ensuring that these agencies operate with the highest standards of accountability and transparency.