Connect with us

Science

Commentary: She was wrongly snagged by Trump's word police. Now her medical research is down the drain

Published

on

Commentary: She was wrongly snagged by Trump's word police. Now her medical research is down the drain

Nisha Acharya, an eye doctor and UC San Francisco professor, was at her campus clinic tending patients when a surprising email arrived.

Her federal research grant had just been terminated, according to a reporter for the Washington Post, who wondered if Acharya had any comment.

She was stunned. Her research, into the workings of the shingles vaccine, didn’t seem remotely controversial. The $3-million grant was the second she’d received, after years of similar work. The National Institutes of Health, which awarded the grant and regularly reviewed Acharya’s performance, had been pleased with all she’d accomplished.

Nevertheless, the NIH tersely informed the university its latest grant was among dozens terminated because the federal government, under President Trump, would no longer support research focused on “why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”

Acharya’s research had nothing to do with any of that.

Advertisement

But the mention of “hesitancy” and “uptake” in her grant application — referring to the concern some cornea specialists had about the vaccine for those with shingles in the eye — was apparently all it took to snare Acharya in a dragnet mounted by the Trump administration word police.

Acharya fears the Trump administration’s heedless termination of grants will set back scientific and medical research for years to come.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)

Perhaps “hesitancy” and “uptake” generated an AI response, or triggered some on-the-hunt algorithm. Acharya can’t be entirely sure, but there’s no evidence an actual human being, much less any sort of expert on vaccines or shingles, reviewed her grant proposal or assessed her work.

Advertisement

She’s gotten no explanation beyond that one, formulaic March 10 email dispatched to the university. “I lost funding immediately,” Acharya said.

logo reading "Trump's America" with red hat in center

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

The randomness of the administration’s action, and its apparent error, is maddening enough. But it’s also frightening, Acharya said, to think that political considerations are now guiding science and scientific research, erasing years of effort and thwarting potential cures and the chance at future breakthrough treatments.

“I don’t think government is in a position, or should be, to dictate what’s important in science,” Acharya said over lunch on UCSF’s sparkling Mission Bay campus.

Advertisement

Trump’s heedless, meddlesome policy, she suggested, is going to scare off a whole generation of would-be scientists and medical researchers, undermining the quest for knowledge, hurting the public and negatively affecting people’s health “for years to come.”

::

Acharya was in a high school when she reached a fork in the road. Now 50, she pressed her hands into a “V” shape to illustrate the two paths.

A computer screen filled with budgetary data

Acharya’s grant was worth $3 million spread over five years of research. She was in the second year of the grant when it was abruptly canceled.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)

Advertisement

At the time she was a violinist in the Chicago Youth Symphony, touring the world with the orchestra. She also loved science. Her father was a pharmaceutical chemist. Her mother taught high school math and chemistry.

She realized, Acharya said, she wasn’t ready to make the commitment or accept the all-encompassing sacrifice needed to forge a professional career in music. So science became her chosen route.

At Stanford, she majored in biology and received a master’s degree in health services research. From there, it was on to UCSF medical school. “I love scientific knowledge. But I really wanted to be able to directly interact with patients,” said Acharya, a self-described people person.

A favorite professor, who specialized in eye infection and inflammation, steered her into ophthalmology and helped Acharya find her life’s passion. She smiled broadly as she rhapsodized with mile-a-minute enthusiasm about her work, eyes wide and fingers fluttering over the table, as though she was once again summoning Bach or Paganini.

“The body affects everything in the eye,” she explained. “Like, if you have an infection, you can get it in the eye. If you have an autoimmune disease, you can have manifestations in the eye. You have blood pressure problems, you can see it in the eye. The eye is like, really, a window into the body.”

Advertisement

Acharya latest research was focused on how the shingles vaccine works.

Shingles is a rash brought on by the varicella zoster virus, which also causes chickenpox. Once chickenpox subsides, the virus can remain dormant in a person’s body for decades before erupting again.

“In the first grant, we showed that the vaccine is very effective at preventing shingles and shingles in the eye if you’ve never had it,” Acharya said. “But we hadn’t gotten to the question of what if you already have shingles in the eye?”

It was work, Acharya said, that no one else was doing, aimed at preventing a loss of vision or blindness. It was not, she repeatedly emphasized, an attempt to promote vaccination, a once-common practice now tangled in layers of political, social and cultural debate — or, for that matter, to dissuade anyone from getting vaccinated.

“This is the kind of research that you would think the government would want. Safety and effectiveness … the pros and the cons,” Acharya said, giving a small, puzzled shake of her head. “I wanted to just get the information out there so people can use it.”

Advertisement

Now that guidance won’t be available anytime soon.

If ever.
::

Acharya has never been politically active. Her whole life and career, she said, have been devoted to the furtherance of science.

While she leans left, she’s never been wedded to any party or ideology; Acharya has found reasons to agree — and disagree — with Democrats and Republicans alike.

She didn’t vote for Trump, but didn’t see her support for Kamala Harris as making any sort of stand for scientific inquiry, or as a means of protecting her grant. “It never crossed my mind,” she said.

Advertisement
A woman in a cream-colored jacket looks down on an open book on a table, with a glass medical display case behind her

Acharya flips through a 1954 book signed by renowned ophthalmologists and researchers in a conference room at UCSF.

(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)

The five-year grant paid 35% of Acharya’s salary — she was nearing the end of Year Two — and, while the loss of income isn’t great, she’ll manage. “I’m a professor and I’m a doctor as well,” she said. “I’m not going to lose my job.”

Acharya has been forced, however, to lay off two data analysts, and a third research position is in jeopardy. Her voice thickened as she discussed those let go. At one point, she seemed to be fighting back tears.

“I’ve cried with my team a lot,” she said over the soft thrum of conversation in the airy cafeteria-style bistro. “I’m just keeping it together because I have to … I still take care of patients. I still teach. I can’t lose it like that. I feel like … I have to find some way to keep on going.”

Advertisement

In its zeal to dismantle the federal government — driven more, it seems, by political calculation and a taste for vengeance than any well-thought-out design — the Trump administration has terminated hundreds of grants, ending research focused on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, COVID-19, mental health services and addiction, among other areas of scientific pursuit.

Hundreds of millions of dollars that already have been spent are now wasted. The fruits of all that research have been blithely and abruptly lopped off the vine.

It’s impossible, Acharya said, to calculate the loss. It’s painful to even try. “All the things that might not be learned,” she mused wistfully. “All the potential gains out there” that may go unrealized.

The termination notice UCSF received from the National Institutes of Health gave Acharya 30 days to appeal if she believed the decision to end her research was made in error. She did so.

A few days later, the university received a pro forma email acknowledging receipt of Acharya’s appeal.

Advertisement

Since then, nothing.

Science

Why California’s milk cartons may lose their coveted recycling symbol

Published

on

Why California’s milk cartons may lose their coveted recycling symbol

California milk cartons may lose their coveted recycling symbol, the one with the chasing arrows, potentially threatening the existence of the ubiquitous beverage containers.

In a letter Dec. 15, Waste Management, one of the nation’s largest waste companies, told the state the company would no longer sort cartons out of the waste stream for recycling at its Sacramento facility. Instead, it will send the milk- and food-encrusted packaging to the landfill.

Marcus Nettz, Waste Management’s director of recycling for Northern California and Nevada, cited concerns from buyers and overseas regulators that cartons — even in small amounts — could contaminate valuable material, such as paper, leading them to reject the imports.

The company decision means the number of Californians with access to beverage carton recycling falls below the threshold in the state’s “Truth in Recycling” law, or Senate Bill 343.

And according to the law, that means the label has to come off.

Advertisement

The recycling label is critical for product and packaging companies to keep selling cartons in California as the state’s single-use packaging law goes fully into effect. That law, Senate Bill 54, calls for all single-use packaging to be recyclable or compostable by 2032. If it isn’t, it can’t be sold or distributed in the state.

The labels also provide a feel-good marketing symbol suggesting to consumers the cartons won’t end up in a landfill when they’re discarded, or find their way into the ocean where plastic debris is a large and growing problem.

On Tuesday, the state agency in charge of waste, CalRecycle, acknowledged Waste Management’s change.

In updated guidelines for the Truth in Recycling law, recycling rates for carton material have fallen below the state threshold.

It’s a setback for carton manufacturers and their customers, including soup- and juice-makers. Their trade group, the National Carton Council, has been lobbying the state, providing evidence that Waste Management’s Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station successfully combines cartons with mixed paper and ships it to Malaysia and other Asian countries including Vietnam, proving that there is a market. The Carton Council persuaded CalRecycle to reverse a decision it made earlier this year that beverage cartons did not meet the recycling requirements of the Truth in Recycling law.

Advertisement

Brendon Holland, a spokesman for the trade group, said in an email that his organization is aware of Waste Management’s decision, but its understanding is that the company will now sort the cartons into their own dedicated waste stream “once a local end market is available.”

He added that even with “this temporary local adjustment,” food and beverage cartons are collected and sorted in most of California, and said this is just a “temporary end market adjustment — not a long-term shift away from historical momentum.”

In 2022, Malaysia and Vietnam banned imports of mixed paper bales — which include colored paper, newspapers, magazines and other paper products — from the U.S. because they were so often contaminated with non-paper products and plastic, such as beverage cartons. Waste Management told The Times on Dec. 5 that it has a “Certificate of Approval” by Malaysia’s customs agency to export “sorted paper material.” CalRecycle said it has no regulatory authority on “what materials may or may not be exported.”

Adding the Sacramento facility to the list of waste companies that were recycling cartons meant that the threshold required by the state had been met: More than 60% of the state’s counties had access to carton recycling.

At the time, CalRecycle’s decision to give the recycling stamp to beverage cartons was controversial. Many in the environmental, anti-plastic and no-waste sectors saw it as a sign that CalRecycle was doing the bidding of the plastic and packaging industry, as opposed to trying to rid the state of non-recyclable, polluting waste — which is not only required by law, but is something state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is investigating.

Advertisement

Others said it was a sign that the Truth in Recycling law was working: Markets were being discovered and in some cases, created, to provide recycling.

“Recyclability isn’t static, it depends on a complicated system of sorting, transportation, processing, and, ultimately, manufacturers buying the recycled material to make a new product,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste.

He said this new information, which will likely remove the recycling label from the cartons, also underscores the effectiveness of the law.

“By prohibiting recyclability claims on products that don’t get recycled, SB 343 doesn’t just protect consumers. It forces manufacturers to either use recyclable materials or come to the table to work with recyclers, local governments and policymakers to develop widespread sustainable and resilient markets,” he said.

Beverage and food cartons — despite their papery appearance — are composed of layers of paper, plastic and sometimes aluminum. The sandwiched blend extends product shelf life, making it attractive to food and beverage companies.

Advertisement

But the companies and municipalities that receive cartons as waste say the packaging is problematic. They say recycling markets for the material are few and far between.

California, with its roughly 40 million residents, has some of the strictest waste laws in the nation. In 1989, the state passed legislation requiring cities, towns and municipalities to divert at least 50% of their residential waste away from landfills. The idea was to incentivize recycling and reuse. However an increasing number of products have since entered the commercial market and waste stream — such as single use plastics, polystyrene and beverage cartons — that have limited (if any) recycling potential, can’t be reused, and are growing in number every year.

Fines for municipalities that fail to achieve the required diversion rates can run $10,000 a day.

As a result, garbage haulers often look for creative ways to deal with the waste, including shipping trash products overseas or across the border. For years, China was the primary destination for California’s plastic, contaminated paper and other waste. But in 2018, China closed its doors to foreign garbage, so U.S. exporters began dumping their waste in smaller southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia and Vietnam.

They too have now tried to close the doors to foreign trash as reports of polluted waterways, chokingly toxic air, and illness grows — and as they struggle with inadequate infrastructure to deal with their own domestic waste.

Advertisement

Jan Dell, the founder and CEO of Last Beach Cleanup, released a report with the Basel Action Network, an anti-plastic organization, earlier this month showing that the Sacramento facility and other California waste companies were sending bales of carton-contaminated paper to Malaysia, Vietnam and other Asian nations.

According to export data, public records searches and photographic evidence collected by Dell and her co-authors at the Basel Action Network, more than 117,000 tons or 4,126 shipping containers worth of mixed paper bales were sent by California waste companies to Malaysia between January and July of this year.

Dell said these exports violate international law. A spokesman for Waste Management said the material they were sending was not illegal — and that they had received approval from Malaysia.

However, the Dec. 15 letter suggests they were receiving more pushback from their export markets than they’d previously disclosed.

“While certain end users maintain … that paper mills are able to process and recycle cartons,” some of them “have also shared concerns … that the inclusion of cartons … may result in rejection,” wrote Nettz.

Advertisement

Dell said she was “pleased” that Waste Management “stopped the illegal sortation of cartons into mixed paper bales. Now we ask them and other waste companies to stop illegally exporting mixed paper waste to countries that have banned it.”

Continue Reading

Science

Video: Why Scientists Are Performing Brain Surgery on Monarchs

Published

on

Video: Why Scientists Are Performing Brain Surgery on Monarchs

new video loaded: Why Scientists Are Performing Brain Surgery on Monarchs

Scientists in Texas are studying monarch butterflies to understand how they navigate thousands of miles, possibly by sensing Earth’s magnetic field. Alexa Robles-Gil explains how researchers are examining the butterflies’ brains to find answers.

By Alexa Robles-Gil, Leila Medina, Joey Sendaydiego and Mark Felix

December 23, 2025

Continue Reading

Science

Video: Engineer Is First Paraplegic Person in Space

Published

on

Video: Engineer Is First Paraplegic Person in Space

new video loaded: Engineer Is First Paraplegic Person in Space

transcript

transcript

Engineer Is First Paraplegic Person in Space

A paraplegic engineer from Germany became the first wheelchair user to rocket into space. The small craft that blasted her to the edge of space was operated by Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin.

Capsule touchdown. There’s CM 7 Sarah Knights and Jake Mills. They’re going to lift Michi down into the wheelchair, and she has completed her journey to space and back.

Advertisement
A paraplegic engineer from Germany became the first wheelchair user to rocket into space. The small craft that blasted her to the edge of space was operated by Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin.

December 21, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending