Entities mentioned:
- NIH director: Duty, Professional pride, Self-preservation
- Experts: Moral outrage, Professional pride, Obligation
- NIH: Duty, Security, Control

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 70/100
Bias Rating: 40/100 (Lean Left)
Sentiment Score: 30/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 35/100 (Generally Democratic)

Bias Analysis:
The article leans slightly left, focusing on expert criticism of a government decision. The framing emphasizes opposition to the cuts, suggesting a preference for maintaining or increasing research funding.

Key metric: Public Health Preparedness

As a social scientist, I analyze that this article highlights a conflict between public health experts and the NIH director over cuts to vaccine research funding. This disagreement suggests potential risks to public health preparedness, as reduced funding for vaccine research could impact the nation's ability to respond to future disease outbreaks or pandemics. The experts' condemnation indicates a significant concern within the scientific community about the long-term consequences of these cuts, potentially affecting the US's global leadership in medical research and its capacity to protect its population from emerging health threats.