Leaders can defund active research programs that might produce inconvenient results and replace them with hand‑picked initiatives aligned with their preferred narrative, then claim only now are 'real studies' being done. This shifts the evidentiary baseline without winning scholarly debates, because the rival hypothesis simply loses funding and staff.
— It shows how control of research budgets can determine which explanations survive in public health and policy, independent of merit.
by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman and Pratheek Rebala, illustrations by Sam Green for ProPublica
2025.08.21
60% relevant
By pushing out researchers and regulators while refusing to disclose totals, leadership can reshape which health priorities get pursued without winning scientific debates, aligning with the mechanism of using funding/staff control to tilt evidence production.
by Sharon Lerner
2025.08.20
100% relevant
RFK Jr. eliminated NIOSH’s autism–chemical exposure unit and cut broader autism funding while launching a $50 million initiative criticized for lack of transparency and for privileging his long‑standing vaccine narrative.
Chris Bray
2025.08.08
85% relevant
RFK Jr.’s HHS reportedly revoked ~$500M and restructured BARDA collaborations (e.g., Moderna’s H5N1 effort, Tiba’s H1N1 work) while announcing mRNA’s risk>benefit for respiratory viruses—an example of leaders using funding control to shift which hypotheses and platforms are pursued.