UCSF Professor Nisha Acharya’s NIH Grant Abruptly Terminated Despite Not Studying Vaccine Hesitancy

In a move that has raised concerns about the new administration’s approach to scientific research funding, Dr. Nisha Acharya, an ophthalmologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, had her National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant abruptly terminated as part of a broader policy shift regarding vaccine research.

According to reporting from CNN and the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Acharya received notification on March 10 that her research grant had been canceled following a change in NIH policy to no longer “prioritize research activities that focus on gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”

The termination appears to have been triggered by what Dr. Acharya describes as having “the words ‘hesitancy’ and ‘vaccine’ in the same sentence” in her grant application, despite her research not actually focusing on vaccine hesitancy.

“I’m not anti-vax. I am pro-science, whether it’s positives or negatives,” Acharya told CNN. “I understand that with any medicine, any vaccine, there may be things that are very good and things that people may need to be cautious about. That is the goal, right?”

According to her profile on UCSF website, “Dr. Acharya is the Director of the Uveitis and Ocular Inflammatory Disease Service and the Uveitis Fellowship at the F.I. Proctor Foundation. Her clinical expertise is the diagnosis and management of patients with infectious and inflammatory eye diseases. She is experienced with the latest treatments for uveitis, including treatment with new immunomodulatory drugs and biologic therapies. Dr. Acharya’s research focuses on the design and implementation of clinical trials to determine the optimal treatment for these conditions. Current projects include clinical trials comparing treatments for uveitis and uveitic-macular edema, and epidemiological studies on ocular inflammatory diseases.”

Dr. Acharya’s terminated research focused on the safety and effectiveness of the Shingrix vaccine, particularly as it relates to herpes zoster ophthalmicus—shingles affecting the nerves around the eye, which can cause severe pain and potentially lead to blindness.

The $3 million grant was her second from the NIH after years of successful research. In her first five-year study, Acharya demonstrated that the vaccine was safe and effective at preventing shingles, including around the eye, in people who had not previously experienced the condition.

Her current research specifically aimed to investigate concerns from fellow ophthalmologists who had observed cases where the vaccine appeared to trigger reawakening of the virus in patients’ eyes—an important safety consideration for specialized patient populations.

Dr. Acharya’s grant was just one of many terminated under the new administration. According to reports, the NIH has canceled at least two dozen grants to researchers who were studying ways to increase vaccination rates or address vaccine hesitancy.

“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 told the Los Angeles Times. “But we hadn’t gotten to the question of what if you already have shingles in the eye?”

The termination wiped out over three years of remaining funding on Dr. Acharya’s current grant, which she says was worth almost $2 million in direct and indirect costs. As a result, she has been forced to lay off two data analysts, with a third research position in jeopardy.

Although the grant funded approximately 35% of her salary, Acharya will retain her position seeing patients. “I’m a professor and I’m a doctor as well,” she told the LA Times. “I’m not going to lose my job.”

However, she expressed deep concern for her team members: “I can’t save them,” she said. “I’m trying to call people and try to get jobs for them. I’m trying to set up interviews and stuff, but it’s really hard.”

Dr. Acharya’s grant was just one of many terminated under the new administration. According to reports, the NIH has canceled at least two dozen grants to researchers who were studying ways to increase vaccination rates or address vaccine hesitancy.

An HHS official provided a statement to CNN, saying: “HHS is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities. At HHS, we are dedicated to restoring our agencies to their tradition of upholding gold-standard, evidence-based science. As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it’s important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans.”

The policy shift comes following the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., described by CNN as “a prominent vaccine skeptic,” to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The termination letter provides Dr. Acharya 30 days to appeal the decision if she believes it was made in error. The appeal would go directly to the new NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“I don’t think government is in a position, or should be, to dictate what’s important in science,” Acharya told the LA Times, expressing concern that politically-driven decisions about scientific research could discourage future generations of scientists and medical researchers, potentially affecting public health “for years to come.”

The LA Times reports that the Trump administration has terminated hundreds of grants beyond vaccine research, ending studies focused on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart disease, COVID-19, mental health services, and addiction.

Universities are struggling with the sudden loss of federal research funding, with UCSF itself implementing a hiring freeze in response to financial constraints. The abrupt termination of established research projects means that hundreds of millions of dollars already invested may now yield no results.

Dr. Acharya’s case highlights concerns about how grants are being selected for termination, with indications that the process may involve keyword searches rather than substantive review of the research content and objectives.