Readers may remember Stanford epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya. He was the target of takedowns and censorship for his evidence-based dissent from now widely slammed government Covid policies.

It seems to have ended well for him as he is on target to be confirmed as the new director of the National Institutes of Health, a position formerly held by Francis Collins (2009–2021).

At City Journal, John Tierney focuses on Bhattacharya’s approach to science, as evidenced during the confirmation hearings:

Banks then asked him to define the role of the NIH director during a pandemic.

“The proper role of scientists in a pandemic is to answer basic questions that policymakers have about what the right policy should be,” Bhattacharya replied. “Our role isn’t to make decisions—to say you shouldn’t be saying goodbye to your grandfather as he’s dying in a hospital.” Instead of decreeing that schools close and people be vaccinated, he said, scientists should accurately describe the risks and benefits of these actions, so that citizens and their leaders can weigh the trade-offs. “Science should be an engine for freedom, for knowledge and freedom, not something that stands on top of society and says you must do this, this, and this, or else.”

That’s a stark contrast from “The Science” extolled by Fauci, Collins, and their acolytes in academia and the media. They proclaimed the necessity of unprecedented authoritarian measures and ostracized scientists who pointed to abundant evidence—from pre-2020 studies as well as data during the pandemic—that these measures were ineffective. They vastly exaggerated the risk of Covid to younger people while ignoring the enormous social, economic, and medical costs of the lockdowns. They justified vaccine mandates for workers, even ones with existing Covid immunity because of prior infection, by falsely claiming that the vaccinated would not spread the virus. Fauci summed up their attitude toward dissenters: “Attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science.” …

But he also made clear that the agency needed to be reformed. “Over the last few years, top NIH officials oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation, and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs,” he said. “Dissent is the very essence of science. I’ll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement respectfully.”

“Jay Bhattacharya’s Confirmation Hearing … ” March 11, 2025

Now that it is becoming safe to acknowledge and even discuss the failures of Covid policies, many will likely be relieved that Bhattacharya is comfortable, in principle, with the idea that science can tolerate dissent.

Not everyone agrees. Francis Collins was a highlight of a recent “Stand Up for Science” rally that seems to want the old regime back again. John West comments at Evolution News,

Collins no doubt believes he is standing up for “science,” but the reality is the opposite: He is promoting the very things that have led to a crisis of confidence in science in this country … For years, Francis Collins was protected from serious criticism by many leaders in the evangelical Christian community. Sadly, they enabled and defended him for more than a decade as he served the agenda of progressives and secularists at NIH.

“Francis Collins Stands Up for DEI, High Overhead, and Unethical Research?” March 10, 2025

With any luck, Bhattacharya will prevail and science will indeed be “an engine for freedom, for knowledge and freedom, not something that stands on top of society and says you must do this, this, and this, or else.”

Note: Wesley J. Smith offers more on the rally here.