When asked what keeps him up at night, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health and interim director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, didn't mention budgets, laboratories or the thousands of research proposals his agency receives each year.
Instead, he pointed to something that science can never cure: the growing disconnect between scientists and the public.
"If I can't find a way to solve that lack of trust," Bhattacharya said, "science in this country will disappear."
Bhattacharya spoke during a lecture and moderated discussion on Wednesday at the University of Florida Health Professions, Nursing and Pharmacy Building auditorium. The event brought students, researchers and faculty together to hear about the NIH director's vision for the future of biomedical research in the United States.
Among the students was UF junior Sofia Rebustillo, 20, who arrived right when the doors opened at 1 p.m. and sat in the third, center row of the auditorium, rolling her eyes when she saw the first two rows were reserved for faculty members.
Originally from Miami and a graduate of Doral High School, she is studying at UF while working as an emergency medical technician. She said she hopes to attend medical school, but as of last year she has also become increasingly interested in public health.
She said that hearing directly from the head of the nation's largest biomedical research agency felt significant. She wanted to know how Bhattacharya used his medical degree from Stanford and doctorate in economics to lead the NIH and CDC.
"I found out two weeks ago that Dr. Bhattacharya was coming to Gainesville," she said. "I was like, 'This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I have to go.'"
Rebustillo sat on the edge of her seat as Bhattacharya began his presentation. He started by outlining three priorities he believes could reshape how the NIH funds scientific research.
The first focused on modernizing how research projects are selected for funding.
He said that each year, the NIH receives roughly 100,000 research proposals from scientists and institutions across the country. Those proposals are currently evaluated through a complex scoring process that weighs both the innovation of an idea and the scientific methods used to test it.
Bhattacharya said that the system can sometimes reward safer, more predictable research rather than bold new ideas.
"We punish failure too much," he said.
Instead, he argued that funding agencies should be more willing to invest in higher-risk ideas backed by credible research that could lead to major breakthroughs.
"I found out two weeks ago that Dr. Bhattacharya was coming to Gainesville," she said. "I was like, 'This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I have to go.'"
Rebustillo sat on the edge of her seat as Bhattacharya began his presentation. He started by outlining three priorities he believes could reshape how the NIH funds scientific research.
The first focused on modernizing how research projects are selected for funding.
He said that each year, the NIH receives roughly 100,000 research proposals from scientists and institutions across the country. Those proposals are currently evaluated through a complex scoring process that weighs both the innovation of an idea and the scientific methods used to test it.
Bhattacharya said that the system can sometimes reward safer, more predictable research rather than bold new ideas.
"We punish failure too much," he said.
Instead, he argued that funding agencies should be more willing to invest in higher-risk ideas backed by credible research that could lead to major breakthroughs.
"If we fund 50 innovative projects and 49 fail, but the one that succeeds cures cancer, that's a very successful funding strategy," he said.
Bhattacharya said his second priority centered on strengthening confidence in scientific research. He emphasized that trust in science is built through replication.
"You establish truth in science when multiple people look at the same question and get the same answer," he said.
Encouraging a culture where scientists replicate one another's work, he said, could improve the rigor and credibility of research findings.
His third proposal addressed how research funding is distributed.
Bhattacharya suggested that the NIH should focus more on empowering scientists rather than concentrating funding within certain institutions.
"There's tremendous talent and ideas waiting to be released," he said, adding that unlocking those ideas could help maintain the United States' position as a global leader in biomedical innovation.
Following the lecture, Bhattacharya joined UF Vice President for Research David Norton for a moderated discussion that addressed questions submitted by the audience.
The conversation covered topics ranging from artificial intelligence in medicine to the ethical use of animals in scientific research.
Bhattacharya said emerging AI tools could dramatically change how scientists study complex biological systems. But he emphasized that medical students would need training to understand how these technologies work and how to evaluate their results.
"No matter what you do, we're going to get it wrong sometimes," he said, adding that medical education will need to evolve to prepare students to work with AI-assisted research tools.
He also addressed concerns about government funding delays and uncertainty during potential government shutdowns. His advice to scientists waiting on research funding was simple: remain patient and stay focused on the broader mission of improving public health.
"Ignore the noise. Remember the mission," he said.
But it was the final question of the discussion that left the strongest impression with many in the audience.
When asked what keeps him awake at night as director of the NIH, Bhattacharya returned to the issue of public trust. After the COVID-19 pandemic, he said, many Americans felt disconnected from the scientific community. Rebuilding that trust, he argued, may be one of the most important challenges facing the country's research institutions.
"The connection between science and the public is what makes science valuable," he said.
Copyright 2026 WUFT 89.1
