Jay Bhattacharya

You, in principle, couldn't construct a control group.

So that kind of work has literally no chance of actually translating over to better treatments, better cures, better ways of managing disease, better ways to prevent disease for minority populations because it's bad science.

Not even science at all, I'd say.

Second, I'd say it presumes an answer even before you have done any testing of it.

And because it presumes an answer, it essentially corrupts the scientific process.

And third, finally, suppose you believe it's true, right?

What action within the context of what's actually possible in the healthcare systems or whatever could you actually take to address it?

I am fully in favor of research that improves the health of everybody, right?

Minority populations, women, it is absolutely true that there are, like, I think there's been underinvestment, for instance, in research on menopause, right?

There's underinvestment on a whole host of things that could translate over to better health for people, especially minorities who do have higher rates of chronic disease and a whole host of other conditions that need to get addressed.

My beef with DEI is that it does not actually address those needs.

And in fact, it diverts attention away from the kinds of investments that would address those needs.

But is there – I sent an email to all the NIH that I do not believe in banned word lists.

They're not supposed to use banned word lists because that's – you know, the word equity shows up in many different contexts.

Yes.

So it's crazy to use a banned word list.

And I told them, I looked at my emails and in my director's statements, no banned word lists.

But instead to assess, because let's say a new grant proposal comes in trying to establish the difference in prevalence in hypertension for African-Americans and whites.

That is an old idea that has already been replicated a million times.

There's no reason for us to fund that.