Research Ethics & Policy Series (REPS): "Hoping for a Phoenix: Building a Better NIH on the Rubble" - Robert Cook-Deegan, MD

12:00pm - 1:00pm • Hybrid: 11-102AB 3600 Civic Ctr Blvd (and virtual via Zoom)

2026-04-14 12:00:00 2026-04-14 13:00:00 America/New_York Research Ethics & Policy Series (REPS): "Hoping for a Phoenix: Building a Better NIH on the Rubble" - Robert Cook-Deegan, MD Hoping for a Phoenix: Building a Better NIH on the Rubble Robert Cook-Deegan, MD Professor School for the Future of Innovation in Society Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes Arizona State University The National Institute of Health (and a National Cancer Institute) went into World War II as a small government lab, a bit player in biomedical research dominated by the Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Foundation, and academic-industry collaborations in endocrinology and biochemistry. During the War, biomedical research went Big, with massive efforts to develop vaccines, antimalarials, penicillin and corticosteroids. The National Institutes of Health as we know it emerged with the release of penicillin contract left-overs that initiated the extramural grants program. Year after year, with a few exceptions, Congress piled money on a growing base. A vibrant political coalition fueled meteoric growth. Institutes proliferated, and NIH became the Gigantor of global biomedical research, spawning Nobel Prizes and sometimes finding cures. Its peer review system sustained broad areas of research, and fueled the molecular biology revolution. But NIH also began to ossify as layers of procedure accumulated. Mary Lasker lamented NIH’s focus on scientific curiosity even as patients died, and tried to pull NCI out of NIH. Grant proposals became phone books; peer review favored conservative projects sure of success at the expense of wildcatting. Private philanthropies and a new ARPA-H filled some gaps. But decades of calls for structural reform and simplification of paperwork led to little. The advent of a federal Administration suspicious of elites and tin-eared regarding health research wrought havoc, exposing vulnerabilities that had worried scientists about federal dependency even as World War II ended. Those fears came home to roost in 2025. Yet after a tumultuous year of grant cuts and staff reductions the budget remains stable. Is there an opportunity for improvement, not by beheading and decimating, but by rethinking and true reform? Let’s explore the possibilities. Registration required; Lunch provided Streaming available via Zoom. Hybrid: 11-102AB 3600 Civic Ctr Blvd (and virtual via Zoom) Penn Medical Ethics

The National Institute of Health (and a National Cancer Institute) went into World War II as a small government lab, a bit player in biomedical research dominated by the Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Foundation, and academic-industry collaborations in endocrinology and biochemistry. During the War, biomedical research went Big, with massive efforts to develop vaccines, antimalarials, penicillin and corticosteroids. The National Institutes of Health as we know it emerged with the release of penicillin contract left-overs that initiated the extramural grants program. Year after year, with a few exceptions, Congress piled money on a growing base. A vibrant political coalition fueled meteoric growth. Institutes proliferated, and NIH became the Gigantor of global biomedical research, spawning Nobel Prizes and sometimes finding cures. Its peer review system sustained broad areas of research, and fueled the molecular biology revolution. But NIH also began to ossify as layers of procedure accumulated. Mary Lasker lamented NIH’s focus on scientific curiosity even as patients died, and tried to pull NCI out of NIH. Grant proposals became phone books; peer review favored conservative projects sure of success at the expense of wildcatting. Private philanthropies and a new ARPA-H filled some gaps. But decades of calls for structural reform and simplification of paperwork led to little. The advent of a federal Administration suspicious of elites and tin-eared regarding health research wrought havoc, exposing vulnerabilities that had worried scientists about federal dependency even as World War II ended. Those fears came home to roost in 2025. Yet after a tumultuous year of grant cuts and staff reductions the budget remains stable. Is there an opportunity for improvement, not by beheading and decimating, but by rethinking and true reform? Let’s explore the possibilities.