On the Media – S2, Episode 2: "The Harvard Plan"

Date: November 7, 2025
Hosts: Brooke Gladstone, Micah Loewinger
Produced with: The Boston Globe

Episode Overview

This episode continues the "Harvard Plan" miniseries, examining the escalating assault on US universities amid political turbulence, federal funding cuts, and ideological battles over higher education’s future. The narrative centers on the fractured mentor-mentee relationship between Dr. Alan Garber (Harvard president) and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH director), exploring how their careers and philosophies have become emblematic of the nation’s scientific and academic upheavals under the Trump administration.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Weaponization of Research Funding ([00:01]–[02:27])

• Federal Cuts: The Trump administration freezes over $2 billion in NIH grants, threatening critical research at Harvard and other institutions.
• Grants as Leverage: Funding once seen as a neutral support becomes a political tool, exposing universities' dependence on federal dollars.
  • Brooke Gladstone: "One of the most potent weapons has turned out to be something a lot of people never thought of as a weapon at all. Grants to study deadly illnesses like colon cancer." ([01:31])

2. The Garber–Bhattacharya Relationship: From Collaboration to Confrontation ([02:56]–[13:48])

• Biographical Sketches:
  • Jay Bhattacharya: Born in India; influenced by childhood poverty; becomes a Stanford M.D.-economist, inspired by Garber.
  • Alan Garber: Soft-spoken, fiercely intelligent, blending medical research with economics, serving as a model mentor.
• Collaborative Years: The pair co-authored papers and jointly secured large grants, shaping research in healthcare economics.
  • Amitav Chandra: "[Alan and Jay] are not ideological about answers. They're extremely data driven and empirical..." ([11:58])
• Diverging Paths: Jay's focus shifts from clinical practice to research and later, public advocacy.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "Every time I would do medicine, I would feel like I was missing doing research." ([10:20])

3. COVID-19 and Public Health Policy ([14:50]–[22:00])

• Blunt Division: Jay becomes a prominent dissenting voice during the pandemic, questioning lockdown efficacy and promoting herd immunity (Great Barrington Declaration).
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "This is the saner approach, the more moral approach, the more scientifically based approach." ([16:45])
• Professional Backlash: Ostracized at Stanford and publicly labeled as "fringe" by NIH officials.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "It felt like an inquisition. They're asking about a thousand questions about, like, my motivations." ([17:59])
  • Dr. Ashish Jha: "I had very strong disagreements...the idea that, like, you're gonna kind of lift all restrictions, just let everybody get infected a month before vaccines come out just doesn't make any sense." ([17:17])
• Personal Motivations: Jay’s pandemic stance is rooted in empathy for the impoverished, drawing on childhood memories from India.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "I just had this like vision of like, this is gonna happen at scale to every poor person on earth." ([19:44])

4. Alan Garber’s Leadership Style Amid Crisis ([22:00]–[25:06])

• Consensus-Builder: Alan, now Harvard president, chooses compromise, cautious change, and consensus in face of ideological attacks and internal chaos.
  • Dan Lieberman: "He's not very emotional about the crisis...just very much focused on the facts, like what's going on and what to do." ([24:09])
• Institutional Shifts: Harvard adapts via dropping diversity statements, renaming DEI offices, and adopting institutional neutrality, but struggles to balance core values with political realities.

5. Political Ascendance and Institutional Upheaval ([27:20]–[32:56])

• Trump–RFK Jr. Era: Jay’s appointment as NIH director (under Sec. RFK Jr.) marks a sea change: deep budget cuts, paused clinical trials, and direct political oversight.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "I'm honored to speak with you today and deeply humbled by President Trump's nomination." ([28:59])
  • Bill Cassidy (Senator): Presses Jay on vaccines and rising public distrust.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "If those concerns result in, in parents not wanting to vaccinate their children for a vaccine that is well tested, my sense is...give people good data." ([31:49])
• A Frayed Personal Bond: Garber abstains from supporting Jay’s confirmation, underscoring their philosophical and professional split.

6. “Bad Words” and Political Vetting of Science ([33:08]–[41:31])

• NIH Grant Drama: Billions in funding cut for Harvard, officially due to antisemitism concerns, but widely viewed as political retribution.
• Internal Dissent: The Bethesda Declaration by NIH staff decries censorship and politicized reviews.
  • Sarah Coburn: "He has his own letter of dissent. He says publicly very often that he welcomes dissent...those of us who were... evaluating grants for their use of bad words know that's not the case now." ([40:12])
  • Ashish Jha: "He wants to be a scientific colleague...but that's not really the truth of the job he's accepted." ([41:19])
• Opaque Criteria: Scientists confused by the lack of clarity on what grants trigger governmental disapproval.

7. Free Speech, Lawsuits, and Academic Autonomy ([42:38]–[45:12])

• Free Speech in Academia: Jay sues the government over alleged social media "blacklisting;" Harvard sues HHS over funding cuts as First Amendment violations.
  • Jay Bhattacharya: "The only thing protecting free speech in this country is frankly, is President Trump." ([43:39])
• Court Victory for Harvard: Federal judge rules the Trump administration’s leverage over research funding constitutes coercion and violates free speech.

8. Fallout, Uncertainty and the Strategic Stakes ([45:12]–[51:14])

• Broken Review Process: NIH staffers report “everything feels broken,” with hidden criteria determining grant fate.
  • Sarah Coburn: "It's eight months now of being asked to do things that we think are wrong." ([45:52])
• Career Uncertainty: Researchers like Camila Naxarova brace for loss of funding, fear erosion of long-term scientific work and the rise of unpredictable, political grant decisions.
  • Camila Naxarova: "If that becomes more of a concern that your grants may get yanked as political situations shift...I wouldn't do it anymore just because it's not possible." ([49:01])
• US–China Rivalry: Loss of research standing seen as a strategic disaster.
  • Ashish Jha: "We are now behind China. This is the most self destructive move I've seen an administration do and Jay is at the heart of that self destructive behavior." ([50:01], [50:39])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the fallout of funding cuts:

  • Camila Naxarova ([02:15]): "And it was unclear what would happen. Would we just have to fire people overnight? Would we have to stop doing everything? Or would there be some sort of help?"

• On stoicism as a coping mechanism:

  • Dan Lieberman on Alan Garber ([24:09]): "He's not very emotional about the crisis...just very much focused on the facts, like what's going on and what to do."

• On living with political uncertainty as a scientist:

  • Camila Naxarova ([49:01]): "We can only do the work if we can do it for a long time. Otherwise there's no point in even doing it."

• On the core conflict:

  • Ashish Jha ([50:39]): "Jay must know this, he must understand this. If he has credibility, which I believe he does, and if he has integrity, which I believe he does, he has got to wrap this battle up quickly and move forward with getting America back on track. Because otherwise generations of people will look back and not blame just Donald Trump and RFK Jr. But Jay Bhattacharya on overseeing the great American loss to China."

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Grant funding becomes a tool of political coercion – [00:01]–[02:27]
• Garber/Bhattacharya mentorship and split – [02:56]–[13:48]
• COVID-19, the Great Barrington Declaration, and academic fallout – [14:50]–[22:00]
• Alan Garber’s leadership style and Harvard's adaptation – [22:00]–[25:06]
• Political rise: Bhattacharya at NIH, new administration, Senate hearing – [27:20]–[32:56]
• NIH dissent, Bethesda Declaration, and "bad words" in grant review – [33:08]–[41:31]
• Speech controversies, lawsuits and judge’s decision – [42:38]–[45:12]
• Research uncertainty, US-China competition, closing reflections – [45:12]–[51:14]

Episode Tone & Closing Thoughts

The episode is investigative, empathetic, and urgent—lacing factual reporting with personal testimony. It adopts a slightly skeptical, but deeply human tone: voicing concern not only for top-tier researchers but the very structure of American scientific progress.

Next episode preview: The Trump administration’s “Compact”—a proposed fast-track science grant pool for universities adopting its standards.