The Trump administration recently installed Kyle Walsh, a close friend of Vice President JD Vance, as the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).
Why do the institute directors matter? Because if the Trump administration wants to send money to their cronies, the institute directors hold the keys. Imagine a billion dollars going to Elon Musk’s Neuralink, or a few billion going to OpenAI to do “cancer research” via ChatGPT. The institute directors (also called Institute and Center, or IC directors) essentially have the power to bypass NIH’s gold standard peer review mechanism, and send money to whom they want. And if they do that, ongoing, top-quality American research will be squeezed out, labs will close, and United States science superiority will have been incinerated. This post is an intro to the NIH institute directors. And here we report the details of how the NIH director searches have run in the past. We’ve consulted with several recent NIH leaders to collect this information.
The NIH institute directors are the 27 officials right below the NIH Director, who together are responsible for where most of the NIH budget goes.
The Trump administration brought Kyle Walsh on quietly, during the government shutdown, in spite of a Federal hiring freeze. The NIEHS directorship role was not publicly advertised, and no competitive selection process took place. In fact, Walsh — who has little prior research experience in environmental health — was not hired into an open position at all. To seat Walsh, the administration ousted Richard Woychik, who had served as NIEHS Director since 2020 and as NIEHS Deputy Director since 2011. Woychik had been in the institute for some time, and he was widely considered as having done an excellent job as director. One NIEHS scientist, speaking anonymously to avoid retribution from the administration, said Woychik had been “an amazing director.” Woychik’s directorship had been renewed mere months prior.
This blatant cronyism does not bode well for future Institute and Center (IC) Director selections at Trump’s NIH. Shortly after installing Walsh, the NIH posted 12 job announcements for IC Director roles. The initial postings gave a shockingly short — for scientific and academic searches — window of two weeks for applications. This is an insufficient amount of time necessary to identify, recruit and vet qualified candidates. While these time windows have since been extended a few additional weeks, Trump’s NIH has made no movement to implement rigorous search processes. Although no statutory requirements dictate such processes for selecting NIH IC directors, more than three decades of precedent call for robust and structured search processes. The NIH search model is based on what most academic institutions do to hire experts. To preserve the integrity of these powerful and influential positions, we must ensure that NIH adheres to these standards.
Why are IC Directors Critical to the Success of NIH?
IC Directors have traditionally held tremendous power and influence within their IC at NIH. They provide scientific oversight and leadership to their IC, establishing strategic priorities (with input from key stakeholders) and making final decisions on what does and does not get funded (with input from peer review, program staff, and Advisory Councils). A recent internal NIH memo suggests the Trump Administration intends to maintain that power in the hands of the Directors - but it is not clear they intend to maintain the legitimacy of those holding these roles by relying on the scientific community to advise on the hires.
What is the typical search and selection process for IC Directors?
For at least three decades, a rigorous and thorough search process has been largely successful in recruiting talented Directors whose service has maintained the NIH as a driver of biomedical innovation and economic growth in the U.S. The NIH structured search process is modeled after leadership searches at major academic institutions across the United States. Recruiting IC Directors is challenging at the best of times. Most suitable applicants would have to be willing to accept a large pay cut and divest from board seats and investments. The NIH process is designed to actively solicit outstanding scientific and medical leaders, selecting the optimal candidate through thorough and fair processes. This approach helps ensure appropriate stewardship of NIH’s public resources and preserves NIH’s status as a world leader in biomedical research.
This information is based on consultation with several past NIH institute directors.
Search Committee - The NIH Director approves the composition of a search committee, which is proposed by the principal deputy director in consultation with community stakeholders and NIH Institute Directors in related areas. The search committee is typically co-chaired by two Institute Directors, composed of 10-12 members, roughly half from NIH with occasional representatives from FDA, CMS, SAMHSA, CDC, or other HHS components when relevant to the mission of the Institute. The remaining members are members of the extramural scientific and/or stakeholder community, representing a broad set of approaches and perspectives. Members are selected not only for their subject matter expertise but also based on familiarity with the institute, its mission and operations. Several of these members may have had direct experience on the Institute Council, Board of Scientific Counselors, or other relationships past or present. Most if not all will have held grants/contracts through the institute.
Advertising the Job Announcement. With the input and approval of the search committee, a job description and posting are developed by the NIH director’s office (led by the principal deputy director) with the help of HR Staff. Minimum qualifications are agreed upon. Advertisements are placed in field-specific and general journals, professional and advocacy organization newsletters, and other appropriate venues as well as federal and NIH job posting sites. Applications are typically accepted for 8-12 weeks after the opening has been posted.
Recruiting Applicants. During this 8-12 week period, the search committee, aided by HR staff, uses numerous unbiased methods to identify potential candidates and conduct outreach to individuals, advocacy organizations, and professional societies to identify and encourage applications from the broadest community possible. Typical searches result in between 20 and 40 applications from qualified individuals, in addition to a variable number of others that are judged unqualified by HR staff.
Reviewing and Scoring Applications. Search committee members review and score each application based on agreed-upon criteria, typically inclusive of scientific excellence, leadership experience and potential, communication skills, and knowledge of the stakeholder landscape. The committee meets to discuss the qualified applicants and selects a list, typically 6-12 candidates, for interviews.
Interviews are conducted, in person prior to the pandemic and typically remotely since the pandemic. The committee agrees upon a set of 8-10 questions they will ask each candidate during the interviews. Each candidate is asked the same questions. Relevant tailored follow-ups are allowed as warranted by the candidates responses.
Committee Recommendations. The committee then discusses the interviewed applicants and selects a short list (typically 2-5 in size) of the top candidates. References are checked on these candidates, and this short list is forwarded to the NIH Director along with the reports from the reference checks. The NIH Director and deputy may solicit additional references.
NIH Visit. The NIH Director selects at least two of the short listed candidates to invite for in person, all day visits, in which they are interviewed and evaluated by a larger set of Institute and Center Directors as well as leaders of NIH Office of the Director components, at the discretion of the NIH Director and Principal Deputy Director, who also meet with the candidate. Part of this process is discussing potential financial or other conflicts of interest that the candidate may have. In some cases a decision is made not to move forward if it is apparent that the candidate is unable or unwilling to divest equities or responsibilities. Based on feedback from these interviews, and the Director’s own assessment, the NIH Director selects a candidate to move forward with an offer.
HHS Sign Off. A hiring package is then prepared by HR and sent for final signoff to the HHS Secretary. To the best of our knowledge, the HHS Secretary has approved all director job offers in the past two decades, in rare circumstances interviewing the candidate.
How can I help ensure NIH maintains high standards for IC Directors?
Contact your members of Congress. Most importantly, Congress members should speak out loudly and publicly, demanding real searches. Ask how you can help them get that message out — and ask them to speak up themselves. Moreover, appropriators in Congress are drafting appropriations packages for NIH, and many other agencies. Ask your members of Congress to make sure these bills include language that requires rigorous search processes for IC Directors, such as mandating search committees composed of both internal civil servant staff and independent external scientists, and requiring a minimum time period for posting job announcements.
Raise awareness of the open positions – and consider applying. As current NIH staff, we understand that working at NIH under this administration may not be most scientists’ dream job. But the administration cannot fill these positions with credible and qualified scientists if no credible and qualified scientists apply. If you’re in a position to apply, please do so.
Raise public awareness about the politicization of IC Director roles. Public support for federally funded science remains high, and most Americans trust scientists to make decisions in the public interest. Make sure your friends, family and colleagues are aware of the suspect circumstances surrounding Kyle Walsh’s appointment to the NIEHS Directorship, and how such politicization of NIH science harms all Americans. Help build public pressure around hiring credible scientists for the open Director positions. Share this blog with your colleagues or post it on social media. If you’ve got a little more time, consider writing an editorial in your local paper!
Couldn't agree more. This piece is a brilliant dissection of how easily scientific integrity can be eroded. The idea of funnelling billions to cronies for 'cancer research' through ChatGPT is almost laughable if it wasn't so terifying. We need peer review and actual data, not just political favours. That would be a serious bug in the system.