After decades of investing in life science breakthroughs, from biotech platforms to diagnostic innovations, I’ve seen what’s possible when bold ideas meet real backing. I’ve also seen what happens when bureaucracy gets in the way. Nearly $52 billion flows through the National Institutes of Health each year — taxpayer money entrusted to one of the world’s most important engines of biomedical progress. It begs a tough question: Is the NIH delivering what it promises? In my opinion, not yet.

Discovery today moves faster than ever, but the NIH struggles to keep pace — not from lack of talent or mission, but because of outdated systems, fragmented structure, and a risk-averse culture. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s not about dismantling anything. It’s about upgrading an essential institution to work the way science works: fast, open, collaborative, and accountable. Under Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, with his courage and clear-eyed vision, we’re closer than ever to meaningful reform.

The NIH’s 27 institutes and centers often function in isolation, duplicating work and missing chances to collaborate. In 2024, $9 billion went to indirect costs like admin overhead — paperwork, not pipettes or Petri dishes. Rep. Cathy McMorris proposed streamlining to 15 centers, a plan that ought to be seriously considered. Merging overlapping fields, say, translational medicine and biomedical imaging, would sharpen focus and accelerate progress. It would help the NIH act like a modern, integrated organization, not a loose confederation of silos. Let scientists spend their time in the lab, not in grant-cycle purgatory.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Public funding comes with public accountability, and the NIH has work to do. Concerns over inadequate responses to research misconduct, opaque grant reviews, and questionable international ties — like those linked to risky pathogen studies — damage credibility and slow progress. What’s needed isn’t punishment but clarity. Reforms to tighten oversight, simplify peer review, and flag repeat issues will protect the science and the people behind it. The American public is generous in funding medical research. It’s time to be just as generous with the truth.

In my years as a venture capitalist, I’ve learned that real innovation comes from unexpected places — outsiders, first-time founders, scientists chasing questions no one else asks. But the NIH’s grant system favors the safe route, funding incremental research while visionary proposals, like a novel approach to Alzheimer’s, get passed over. Put more generalists and cross-disciplinary thinkers on peer review panels. Train reviewers to recognize high-risk/high-reward ideas. Carve out funding for newcomers applying for the first time. We can’t solve 21st-century problems if we’re afraid to back 21st-century thinkers.

The scientific landscape has changed — AI decodes protein structures, organ-on-chip tech replaces animal testing, wearables guide patient care. Yet the NIH uses tools and timelines built for another era. The new public access policy, requiring funded studies to be shared freely, is a good start. But modernizing how we evaluate, fund, and share research is overdue. AI-driven grant reviews and real-time data platforms could match the global pace of discovery. If we want to compete with China and Europe, we need to move faster.

Despite its massive budget, the NIH sends disproportionate funding to elite institutions. In 2023, half of all grants went to just 10 states. Great science can come from a fresh PhD in Idaho or a tenured lab in Iowa, but without grant caps, geographic diversity, and fair review standards, those ideas never get a shot. America doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. Let’s stop acting like it does.

Are all reform proposals perfect? No. They’ll need input from scientists, policymakers, and patients who count on the results. Ignoring the problem, though, is reckless. This isn’t about tearing down the NIH; it’s about retooling it for today’s challenges. I came to this country believing in what it stood for. I’ve backed companies that pushed the limits of healthcare. I believe American science is the best in the world, but it needs a system that doesn’t hold it back. Let’s build an NIH that earns trust, funds bold ideas, and turns the best thinking into real-world cures. It’s time we let science lead. 

* * *

Guy Paul Nohra is co-founder of Alta Partners, a leading Venture Capital firm in life sciences, funding over 150 companies in the healthcare/life sciences sector since 1996 through eight Venture Capital funds.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rachel Zegler taught them nothing. 

The star of the live-action “Snow White” reboot trashed the source material in comments that quickly went viral in 2023. Zegler followed that up by attacking MAGA nation months before the expensive film hit theaters, wishing Trump voters “never know peace.”

More viral infamy. What happened next? “Snow White” flopped, hard, in its March theatrical debut. 

It was the clearest example of a star sabotaging their own film, a warning for other actors not do the same. They didn’t listen.

Celebrities don’t open up to Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and other Legacy Media outlets because they’re bored. It’s all part of the marketing machine meant to fill movie theater seats.

It’s why stars sing Karaoke in moving cars, gulp down hotter than hot wings and otherwise make themselves available to podcast interviewers weeks before their new film or TV show bows.

It’s Marketing 101. Yet stars use these moments to push their political agendas, lash out at conservatives and cause potential customers to avoid the nearest movie house.

You’d think one of Hollywood’s savviest storytellers might know the drill. Yet writer/director James Gunn ignored ZeglerGate in the days leading up to “Superman’s” release.

Gunn’s Man of Steel reboot is the key to DC Comics relaunching its superhero universe on the big screen. Gunn, who previously delivered three “Guardians of the Galaxy” films, was entrusted by Warner Bros. to revive Superman and kickstart who knows how many new superhero films.

Steve Granitz/FilmMagic

The movie’s marketing campaign stayed upbeat and positive for month after month. No one on Team Superman brought up political or culture war issues. It was all about the iconic character – an overgrown Boy Scout who came to Earth to protect it.

And then, mere days before the film’s July 11 debut, Gunn got political during a Times of London interview. And nasty.

I mean, Superman is the story of America … An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.” I ask if he has considered how differently the film might play in say, blue state New York — aka Metropolis — and Kansas, where Kent grew up? “Yes, it plays differently,” Gunn admits. “But it’s about human kindness and obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them.

The ”Them” in that sentence may have been eager to see Gunn’s take on Superman. Not anymore.

Brother Sean Gunn, who has a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo in the film, doubled down on his older brother’s rhetoric on the red carpet.

My reaction to [the backlash] is that it is exactly what the movie is about …  we support our people, you know? We love our immigrants. Yes, Superman is an immigrant, and yes, the people that we support in this country are immigrants and if you don’t like that, you’re not American. People who say no to immigrants are against the American way.

It’s worth noting Gunn’s “Superman” is neither political nor woke. So this was a case of Gunn pushing his personal politics into the public arena, knowing how social and new media outlets would process it.

And, evidently, not caring what impact it might have.

“Superman” may end up being too big to fail. It’s a beloved character who unites generations of movie goers, and the double barrel Gunn comments might not be enough to hurt its box office standing.

Or it could be enough of a wedge to stop the film from making all the money to spark a fresh wave of superhero films.

Why risk it?

It isn’t just Gunn ignoring the lesson Zegler learned the hard way. Omnipresent actor Pedro Pascal stars in the second-biggest film of the summer. He’s Reed Richards in “The Fantastic Four: First Steps,” the reboot of a reboot of the Marvel Comics super family.

Gerald Matzka/Getty Images

He’s spent the last few weeks attacking J.K. Rowling for defending women from trans female athletes. Bullies, Pascal said, make him sick. And he considers the “Harry Potter” author to be just that.

He also used a red carpet appearance to push for trans rights. He has a trans sibling and routinely speaks out on the issue.

It’s important to protect people, especially those simply asking for the right to exist in bodies that belong to them and in the world that they never asked to be brought into … It’s a very, very small, vulnerable, inspiring, courageous and brave community that fills me with a lot of inspiration. Therefore, it’s very important to protect that. They would do that for us.

Oh, and “The Fantastic Four” opens July 25.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Actor Christian Bale called Moses a “terrorist” during the runup to the release of “Exodus: Gods and Kings.” That 2014 film bombed.

The list of stars getting aggressively political while promoting their movies, in general, is too long to include here. It’s standard procedure in Hollywood, but the Zegler fallout suggested stars might understand their corrosive takes will hurt their bottom lines at some point. Plus, the industry is buckling under seismic tech advancements, from A.I. threats to streaming platforms struggling to make ends meet.

They don’t seem to care.

Artists can say whatever they want, whenever they want. That’s the beauty of the First Amendment. They shouldn’t be punished for holding a specific point of view.

That said, an actor’s job is to promote their work to ensure they get even more work down the short road. Insulting potential audience members and stoking Culture War fires for no reason is incredibly short-sighted.

There are countless ways consumers can spend their leisure time today, from video games to doom-scrolling on social media. We need an excuse, preferably a big one, to shlep to a theater and pay the exorbitant fees for tickets and popcorn.

Artists like Gunn, Zegler and Pascal often make it easy for us. Nah … I’ll Netflix and chill instead.

* * *

Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.