As Jason Abaluck scrolled through court filings, he couldn’t help but feel a twinge of annoyance. The saga began on September 1, 2021, when he noticed Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford health economist, misinterpreting his research on the impact of masking on Covid-19 in Bangladesh. Despite Abaluck’s efforts to set the record straight through a series of Twitter messages and emails, Bhattacharya continued to misrepresent the statistical details. This ongoing exchange culminated in Bhattacharya acting as an expert witness in a Tennessee case, regurgitating the same inaccuracies that Abaluck had painstakingly corrected just a day before. Abaluck, a health economist at Yale, holds his field in high regard, valuing evidence over preconceived notions. To him, Bhattacharya’s behavior fell short of this standard, leaving him to ponder whether the esteemed economist was intentionally deceptive or simply deluding himself.
Abaluck wasn’t alone in his assessment of Bhattacharya’s approach. In 2023, a judge in Alberta, Canada, criticized Bhattacharya for his refusal to acknowledge inconvenient facts and accused him of advancing a personal agenda. Similarly, the judge in the 2021 Tennessee case expressed distrust in Bhattacharya’s testimony. Now, with the possibility of being appointed to lead the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest biomedical research funder, Bhattacharya’s conflicting personas come into sharp relief. While some view him as a reasonable advocate for science and evidence-based decision-making, others question his ideological motivations.
Mark Hlatky, a professor of health policy and medicine at Stanford, describes Bhattacharya as a rational individual who prioritizes problem-solving through scientific inquiry. Dana Goldman, director of the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, believes that Bhattacharya is well-positioned to champion the value of science and its role in fostering economic prosperity. This duality that defines Bhattacharya—simultaneously hailed as a science advocate and a skeptic, a proponent of expert opinions and a critic of their dominance—underscores the complexities of his character.
Despite Bhattacharya’s academic background and expertise, his views on Covid-19 vaccines have drawn scrutiny. While he acknowledges them as a scientific triumph, he has also expressed concerns about their potential risks for younger adults and children. His cautionary stance on expert opinion contrasts with his willingness to embrace a leadership role in government, blurring the lines between academic discourse and political responsibility.
In a whirlwind turn of events, Bhattacharya has transitioned from a reserved professor to a polarizing figure in the Covid-19 era, attracting attention on social media platforms and now poised to influence national healthcare policy. This evolution underscores the intricate interplay between academic rigor and public perception, shedding light on the nuanced role of experts in shaping societal discourse and policy decisions.
