NIH Races to Fill Half Its Top Roles After Mass Exodus

The U.S. National Institutes of Health is seeking to fill nearly half of its top roles at breakneck speed following a wave of departures since President Donald Trump's return to office in January, according to job postings on its website and interviews with two current and three former NIH officials.

The agency, which contains 27 institutes and centers, posted job advertisements for 11 of 13 vacant directorships Nov. 7, initially giving candidates two weeks to apply but later extending the deadline until Dec. 12. The other two jobs were posted in September.

The overhaul of directors, who play a crucial role in setting the research and scientific mission of the agency as well as securing funding, could affect grants and projects that often extend beyond a single presidential term.

The Trump administration inherited an NIH with three top-level vacancies. Since then, three more directors have retired, two left for other NIH roles, and six were fired or let go as part of the government's mass layoffs in health agencies.

It fired 1,200 of NIH's 20,000-person workforce.

The vacant directorships include those at institutes responsible for researching infectious diseases and vaccines; child and reproductive health; mental health; biomedical research; health disparities; global health cooperation; as well as the NIH's clinical center.

The wide recruitment and short application window are described by former and current NIH officials as unprecedented, both in the number of simultaneous searches and the targeted speed, raising concerns over the integrity and effectiveness of the process.

"The institute directors are really crucial positions," said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences from 2003 to 2011. "By statute, it's the institute directors who are legally making funding decisions."

The agency has received "robust interest" in the open positions, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said, adding it would reopen position announcements if it needs more time to find the ideal candidates and was willing to extend the process for as long as needed.

"Following closure of the announcements, an NIH leadership team with experience in scientific agency management will consider the applicant pool and make recommendations to the NIH Director," the spokesperson said.

Skepticism Over the Process

The NIH has not disclosed who is on the search panels for the new vacancies, or whether outside scientists and patient advocates are involved, as in the past.

Berg, who has served on and chaired past NIH search committees, said searches are usually slower and more active.

"The ads were typically open for around six weeks, maybe more than that, but certainly a lot more than two weeks," he said.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, two current and two former NIH officials said the expedited processes could signal an intent to favor candidates politically aligned with the administration.

Advertising the positions, even for a shorter period than what is typical, was "relatively" a more promising approach than directly hiring allies, said one NIH scientist who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak.

"But it's unusual to have so many open at once," the scientist said.

The HHS spokesperson did not respond to a question on concerns over political appointments.

Directors oversee billions of dollars in grants and set the scientific direction for their fields, but must navigate government ethics rules and lower-than-private-sector pay.

The renewal of the initial two-week application window may have reflected a reluctance among potential candidates.

"I think there is a great deal of skepticism," Berg said.