Multiple sources over the last few weeks report that the NIH’s $154 million research program, Advancing Health Communication Science and Practice, has been paused. This is sad news for our health communication community, and beyond.
There is concern that the halt in the program is politically motivated, and that NIH leadership is bowing to pressure. A KFF article from earlier this week echoes a sentiment from other health communication experts: “The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?”
The central issue many experts point to is the political climate around research into misinformation and disinformation on social media.
A JAMA editorial from last month, written by Dean Schillinger and Richard Baron, decries the decision:
“The NIH’s unfortunate decision to halt the program, which took place in the face of mounting political pressures related to the study of misinformation, represents a serious threat to the integrity of science and to it successful translation.
This has happened at a time when the communication ecosystem for science and health information has become increasingly contaminated, noxious, and politicized, a development that has significantly undermined public health and caused harm to millions of individuals across the US. More than ever, the scientific community needs to harness all its resources and develop novel collaborations to advance the nascent field of health communication science and ensure that the majority of Americans have access to credible, persuasive, and actionable lifesaving evidence to inform their daily decisions.”
“Health Communication Science in the Balance”
Schillinger and Baron make the connection many of us in health communication are well aware of – the role of communication in many COVID-19 related deaths. The authors cite research finding “between 178 000 and 331 800 COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented from January 2021-April 2022 if the uptake of vaccines had been optimized, a gap due in large part to disinformation.” They lament the loss of what would have been a “critical, game-changing” research program, concluding that “with so much at risk, this is precisely the wrong time to back away from research into a critical threat to the health of our country.”
Another JAMA editorial from earlier this month gives a detailed timeline of events over the nearly 2 years of the program’s history leading up to the June announcement. Author Rita Rubin traces the program from inception through to the “perplexing” halt. Rubin also gives background into the legal cases that may be behind the NIH’s explanation for halting the program—a current lawsuit Missouri v Biden, as well as the 1997 Dickey Amendment which effectively suppressed research related to gun violence.
I have heard other health communication experts call this “bad news,” and “startling and scary.” I have witnessed great respect for NIH leadership and researchers within the health communication community, which may be adding to our collective confusion and sadness. I am also sorry for fellow researchers, especially those who had prepared to apply for this funding. One researcher called for “more stalwart public health leaders who will stand up to the bullies who are challenging the dire need for clear, accurate, and timely health information and evidence-based public policies to promote public health!”
