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

For Oprah Winfrey, a croissant is now just a croissant — not a struggle

Published

on

For Oprah Winfrey, a croissant is now just a croissant — not a struggle

Yes, Oprah Winfrey has discussed her weight loss and weight gain and weight in general before — many, many times before. The difference this time around, she says, is how little food noise there is in her daily life, and how little shame. It’s so quiet, in fact, that she can eat a whole croissant and simply acknowledge she had breakfast.

“Food noise,” for those who don’t experience it, is a virtually nonstop mental conversation about food that, according to Tufts Medicine, rarely shuts up and instead drives a person “to eat when they’re not hungry, obsess over meals and feel shame or guilt about their eating habits.”

“This type of obsessive food-related thinking can override hunger cues and lead to patterns of overeating, undereating or emotional eating — especially for people who are overweight,” Tufts said.

Winfrey told People in an exclusive interview published Tuesday that in the past she would have been thinking, “‘How many calories in that croissant? How long is it going to take me to work it off? If I have the croissant, I won’t be able to have dinner.’ I’d still be thinking about that damn croissant!”

What has changed is her acceptance 2½ years ago that she has a disease, obesity, and that this time around there was something not called “willpower” to help her manage it.

Advertisement

The talk show host has been using Mounjaro, one of the GLP-1 drugs, since 2023. The weight-loss version of Mounjaro is Zepbound, like Wegovy is the weight-loss version of Ozempic. Trulicity and Victroza are also GLP-1s, and a pill version of Wegovy was just approved by the FDA.

When she started using the injectable, Winfrey told People she welcomed the arrival of a tool to help her get away from the yo-yo path she’d been on for decades. After understanding the science behind it, she said, she was “absolutely done with the shaming from other people and particularly myself” after so many years of weathering public criticism about her weight.

“I have been blamed and shamed,” she said elsewhere in that 2023 interview, “and I blamed and shamed myself.”

Now, on the eve of 2026, Winfrey says her mental shift is complete. “I came to understand that overeating doesn’t cause obesity. Obesity causes overeating,” she told the outlet. “And that’s the most mind-blowing, freeing thing I’ve experienced as an adult.”

She isn’t even sharing her current weight with the public.

Advertisement

Winfrey did take a break from the medication early in 2024, she said, and started to regain weight despite continuing to work out and eat healthy foods. So for Winfrey the obesity prescription will be renewed for a lifetime. C’est la vie seems to be her attitude.

“I’m not constantly punishing myself,” she said. “I hardly recognize the woman I’ve become. But she’s a happy woman.”

Winfrey has to take a carefully managed magnesium supplement and make sure she drinks enough water, she said. The shots are done weekly, except when she feels like she can go 10 or 12 days. But packing clothes for the Australian leg of her “Enough” book tour was an off-the-rack delight, not a trip down a shame spiral. She’s even totally into regular exercise.

Plus along with the “quiet strength” she has found in the absence of food noise, Winfrey has experienced another cool side effect: She pretty much couldn’t care less about drinking alcohol.

“I was a big fan of tequila. I literally had 17 shots one night,” she told People. “I haven’t had a drink in years. The fact that I no longer even have a desire for it is pretty amazing.”

Advertisement

So back to that croissant. How did she feel after she scarfed it down?

“I felt nothing,” she said. “The only thing I thought was, ‘I need to clean up these crumbs.’”

Continue Reading

Science

Owners of mobile home park destroyed in the Palisades fire say they’re finally clearing the debris

Published

on

Owners of mobile home park destroyed in the Palisades fire say they’re finally clearing the debris

Former residents of the Palisades Bowl Mobile Home Estates, a roughly 170-unit mobile home park completely destroyed in the Palisades fire, received a notice Dec. 23 from park owners saying debris removal would start as early as Jan. 2.

The Bowl is the largest of only a handful of properties in the Palisades still littered with debris nearly a year after the fire. It’s left the Bowl’s former residents, who described the park as a “slice of paradise,” stuck in limbo.

The email notice, which was reviewed by The Times, instructed residents to remove any burnt cars from their lots as quickly as possible, since contractors cannot dispose of vehicles without possessing the title. It followed months of near silence from the owners.

“The day before Christmas Eve … it triggers everybody and throws everybody upside down,” said Jon Brown, who lived in the Bowl for 10 years and now helps lead the fight for the residents’ right to return home. “Am I liable if I can’t get this done right now? Between Christmas and New Year’s? It’s just the most obnoxious, disgusting behavior.”

Brown is not optimistic the owners will follow through. “They’ve said things like this before over the years with a bunch of different things,” he said, “and then they find some reason not to do it.”

Advertisement

Earlier this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency denied requests from the city and the Bowl’s owners to include the park in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cleanup program, which FEMA said was focused on residential lots, not commercial properties. In a letter, FEMA argued it could not trust the owners of the Bowl to preserve the beachfront property as affordable housing.

A tattered flag waves in the wind at Asilomar View Park overlooking the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

The Bowl, which began as a Methodist camp in the 1890s, was purchased by Edward Biggs, a Northern California real estate mogul, in 2005 and split between his first and second wives after his death in 2021. The family has a history of failing to perform routine maintenance and seeking to redevelop the park into a more lucrative resort community.

Advertisement

After FEMA’s rejection, the owners failed to meet the City of L.A.’s debris removal deadlines. In October, the city’s Board of Building and Safety Commissioners declared the park a public nuisance alongside seven other properties, giving the city the authority to complete the debris removal itself and charge the owners the bill.

But the city has yet to find funds to front the work, which is expected to cost millions.

On Dec. 10, City Councilmember Traci Park filed a motion that would order the city to come up with a cost estimate for debris removal and identify funding sources within the city. It would also instruct the city attorney’s office to explore using criminal prosecution to address the uncleared properties.

The Department of Building and Safety did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Despite the recent movement on debris removal, residents of the Palisades Bowl still have a long road ahead.

Advertisement
Fire debris remains at Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates on Dec. 31, 2025.

On Wednesday, numerous burnt out vehicles still remained at the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates. The owners instructed residents they must get them removed as quickly as possible.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

In mobile home parks, tenants lease their spaces from the landowners but own the homes placed on the land. Before residents can start rebuilding, the Bowl’s owners need to replace or repair the foundations for the homes; fix any damage to the roads, utilities and retaining walls; and rebuild facilities like the community center and pool.

The owners have not responded to multiple requests for comment, but in February, Colby Biggs, Edward Biggs’ grandson, told CalMatters that “If we have to go invest $100 million to rebuild the park and we’re not able to recoup that in some fashion, then it’s not likely we will rebuild the park.”

Mobile home law experts and many residents doubt that the Biggs family would be able to convert the rent-controlled mobile home park into something else under existing law. The most realistic option, should the Biggs decide against rebuilding, would be to sell the park to another owner — or directly to the residents, a course of action the residents have been actively pursuing.

Advertisement

The lack of communication and action from the owners has nonetheless left the Bowl’s eclectic former community of artists, teachers, surfers, first responders and retirees in limbo.

Many are running out of insurance money for temporary housing and remain unsure whether they’ll ever be able to move back.

Continue Reading

Science

Video: Drones Detect Virus in Whale Blow in the Arctic

Published

on

Video: Drones Detect Virus in Whale Blow in the Arctic

new video loaded: Drones Detect Virus in Whale Blow in the Arctic

Scientists flew drones with petri dishes above several species of whales in northern seas to collect samples of whale blow, which they tested for four different viruses. For the first time in the Arctic, researchers found cetacean morbillivirus, a highly infectious and deadly virus for marine mammals.

By Jamie Leventhal and Alexa Robles-Gil

January 2, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending