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 new dads shouldn’t panic about low testosterone

Published

on

Why new dads shouldn’t panic about low testosterone

Three months after his son was born, Kevin Maguire felt alone.

It was 2019. He had recently moved to Barcelona with his wife and daughter and was working on marketing projects for Fortune 500 companies. The birth of his son, Bodhi, should have been a joyous event. But Maguire, now 43, became sad and irritable, and didn’t want to be around his newborn. He withdrew from family and friends, often playing video games late into the night or finding excuses to get out of the house.

“I would take the dog out for a walk,” Maguire said. “I wanted to get far away enough that I wouldn’t bump into anyone I knew and I would just sit and cry.”

Desperate for answers, he entered his symptoms online. Maguire, author of the recently published book “The New Fatherhood: Why Everything They Told You About Being a Dad Is Wrong, and How Embracing It Will Transform Your Life,” knew to look for signs of the “baby blues” in his wife. But he was surprised by articles that said men could experience postpartum depression too. The diagnosis resonated and he began writing about his condition and the trials of fatherhood on Substack.

Advertisement

New dads face psychological pressures, from sleepless nights to sky-high bills, which can contribute to postpartum depression. So can shifting hormone levels.

“One thing I found in my lab’s research is that when new dads have really low levels of testosterone, they might report more symptoms of postpartum depression,” said Darby Saxbe, a professor of psychology at USC and author of the recently published “Dad Brain: The New Science of Fatherhood and How It Shapes Men’s Lives.”

While hormonal shifts can create challenges, they also help men adapt to fatherhood, Saxbe explained. Several hormones can spike in men when they become dads, including oxytocin, linked to better relationship quality; vasopressin, associated with emotional bonding; and prolactin, which promotes lactation in women and caregiving behavior in guys.

New dads can also experience a decline in testosterone. According to a 2011 paper from University of Notre Dame professor Lee Gettler, part of the largest study on fatherhood and testosterone ever conducted, men averaged around a 25% drop in testosterone after becoming fathers.

While dads have reasons to be concerned by plummeting levels of testosterone, a modest dip isn’t necessarily a disaster — in fact, it can make men better parents and partners.

Advertisement

“We often get invested in the idea that men should always have the highest possible levels of testosterone,” Saxbe said. “What the research tells us is a little more nuanced. You really want flexibility. You want a hormonal system that can adapt to the different demands of your life.”

The prospect of a decline might scare soon-to-be fathers, especially those on TikTok and Instagram, where accounts push the idea that having “high T” is the key to being a “real man,” according to a recent study in the journal Social Science & Medicine.

Influencers stand to profit persuading men there’s a widespread “masculinity crisis,” the researchers found, noting that 72% of the accounts they analyzed had a stake in testosterone supplements and treatments.

But studies show more testosterone isn’t always better. “We found that when dads have higher testosterone, even before birth, they’re less invested [than men with lower testosterone] in co-parenting a few months after birth,” Saxbe said. High T fathers were more stressed from parenting than their lower T counterparts, and had partners who were less satisfied in their romantic relationships.

This jibes with the challenge hypothesis, which says, in multiple species, testosterone levels rise when males battle for attention from potential mates and go down when it’s time to take care of the young.

Advertisement

While a small decline can be adaptive, dads face mental health risks when their testosterone drops too low.

There is no “normal” level of testosterone, said Dr. Jesse Mills, director of the Men’s Clinic at UCLA Health. Experts recommend that men should consider treatment if their levels dip below 300 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dL). But men metabolize testosterone in different ways, meaning a healthy level for one might be low for another.

“If a new dad comes to me and his testosterone is 298 [ng/dL], he’s below the threshold,” Mills said. “But if he has zero symptoms and everything else is going great — he’s over the moon with his new child, he’s so happy — that’s not somebody I’m going to treat with testosterone.”

He notes that the drop in testosterone fathers experience can partly be attributed to the stresses that come with a new kid: less sleep, a poor diet and fewer trips to the gym. That means there are precautions that expectant fathers can take that don’t involve testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

Still, while some guys with low testosterone levels might not need TRT, others in the “normal” range could benefit from treatment. (Dads who want another kid soon, beware. Mills notes that testosterone replacement therapy can take a man’s sperm count to zero.)

Advertisement

Both Mills and Saxbe stress that men should be paying attention to symptoms of low testosterone — such as depression and low libido — rather than trying to reach or maintain an ideal number. They also agree that tending to mental health concerns is hugely important for new fathers.

Eventually, after Maguire researched his condition, he recovered after time spent meditating, exercising and bonding with his son.

“A lot of new dads don’t realize how much they’re struggling because they feel ashamed or because they don’t realize it’s common shortly after the birth of a baby,” Saxbe said.

When they struggle, fathers can fixate on testosterone because that’s what modern culture tells them will make them feel better. And sometimes testosterone replacement therapy works. But Saxbe stresses a lot of men could use psychotherapy or support groups that bring dads together, as well as more time bonding with loved ones in general.

“The thing that predicts a man’s well-being and longevity is the quality of his relationships with other people,” said Saxbe. “You can be the world’s best weightlifter. You can have a low body-fat percentage. You can be killing it at work. Those things don’t predict how happy you’re going to be at 80.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

Published

on

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

new video loaded: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

transcript

transcript

NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

“I am excited to welcome you as the next crew in the Artemis journey to successfully return to the moon — this time to stay.” “I’m honored by the role that I’ve been given. I’m also very humbled by the task in front of us. But first and foremost, I’m grateful.” “So with that, the Artemis II crew, comrade, hands you the baton. You got the controls.” “As you know, we had a significant anomaly at our Launch Complex 36A on May 28. We’ve redoubled our efforts and are moving forward.”

Advertisement
NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 9, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Published

on

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Scientists feared the Santa Monica Mountains’ last remaining steelhead trout were dead, smothered by debris flows unleashed by the Palisades fire.

But the endangered fish surprised them: A team of biologists recently spotted 30 of the rare trout — and 21 babies — in Topanga Creek.

“There was a lot of happy dancing in the creek,” said Rosi Dagit, principal conservation biologist for the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, which works with public and private landowners to conserve natural resources.

That’s because the steelhead here are endangered, at both the state and federal levels. Once, they swam in most streams of the Santa Monicas, but their numbers plummeted amid overfishing and coastal development. Increasingly frequent wildfire has further stressed their habitat. Topanga Creek, a biodiversity hot spot, is home to their last known population in the mountains that stretch from the Hollywood Hills to Point Mugu in Ventura County.

The trout that were spotted, including this one, are part of a distinct Southern California population that’s listed as endangered at the state and federal levels.

Advertisement

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife spearheaded a complex mission to rescue trout threatened by the Palisades fire that sparked in January 2025.

Time was of the essence. The fire hadn’t yet been fully contained. But rain was on the way, which would sweep massive amounts of sediment from the denuded hillsides into the water. Fish are often killed this way.

Crews stunned the fish with electricity, scooped them up in buckets, trucked them to a hatchery and ultimately moved them to Arroyo Hondo Creek in Santa Barbara County.

Advertisement

Within days, Topanga Creek was choked with mud. Some assumed the fish left behind were goners.

But in March, the conservation district’s team found four. The following month, when water conditions were clearer, they saw more.

“These fish continue to amaze me,” said Kyle Evans, environmental program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, who had seen the damage to the creek. “I had seen populations get wiped out in similar situations. So when I heard, I was thrilled.”

Evans surmises the fish that survived were in an area of the creek where less charred material and sediment were swept in.

“These fish likely hunkered down, were hiding under some rocks or places to try to get away from the main concentration of flow,” he said. “And luckily they weren’t buried.”

Advertisement

The ones that were spotted were fairly small, around 6 to 14 inches. Rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species, but with different lifestyles. If the fish remain in freshwater, they’ll be considered rainbows. However, they can migrate to the ocean and become steelhead, where they typically grow larger before returning to their natal waters to spawn.

Topanga Creek hasn’t fully recovered from the damage it sustained, but scientists say it’s looking better. Surveys last year were “so depressing,” Dagit said, with very few animals, and stretches that were essentially transformed into flat roads from all the sediment buildup. Some of the riparian canopy burned right down to the creek.

Then came 32 inches of rain over the last nine months, scouring out and moving sediment, creating deeper pools. Dagit said they recently found newt egg masses for the first time in years, as well as a few adult newts and many frogs. Plants that provide cover are starting to recover.

She provided photos comparing certain pools last year and this year, some dramatically transformed. In September 2025, the Shrine Pool could have been an overgrown hiking trail. This April, it was filled with shallow water.

Shrine Pool, Sept. 2025, left, and the same location, April 2026, right.

The Shrine Pool in September 2025, left, and the same location in April 2026, right, with RCDSMM’s Isaac Yelchin donning a wetsuit.

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

Advertisement

Topanga Creek is home to another endangered fish, the small but hardy northern tidewater goby, often described as cute. Not long before the trout operation, Dagit led a rescue of hundreds of these fish too. Many were repatriated to the lagoon at the mouth of the creek in a moving ceremony last June.

There’s still the matter of what to do with the trout that were moved to Santa Barbara County last year. Evans would like to bring them home to the Santa Monicas at some point, but isn’t sure if it will happen. On one hand, they could bolster the small, genetically isolated surviving population. On the other, they might inadvertently bring in a disease or bacteria. There is some time to decide. Evans estimates the creek still needs to recover for two to three more years.

For now, the fish are functioning fine in their adopted creek. Experts worried the trauma wrought by the move would disrupt their spawning process, but they had babies that spring. This year, they spawned again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending