Photo credit: arstechnica.com
“Courage and Clarity”
In a recent commentary, Vanderbilt researchers Jeremy Jacobs and Garrett Booth expressed strong criticism regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to appoint David Geier, a controversial figure known for his anti-vaccine stance, to oversee a federal study examining the relationship between immunizations and neurodevelopmental outcomes. The Geiers, David and his father Mark, were previously identified by Nature magazine in 2010 as prominent figures among those who deny scientific evidence. Their persistent promotion of the discredited belief that vaccines are linked to autism is well-documented, a claim also supported by Kennedy. Mark Geier lost his medical license after facing multiple accusations of mistreatment towards children with autism, while David Geier, lacking any medical qualifications, has faced penalties for practicing medicine without a license.
Jacobs and Booth raised concerns that appointing David Geier undermines the credibility of research efforts, diminishes public trust in science, and legitimizes false information. They characterized this decision as a troubling concession to pseudoscience, emphasizing the potential risks of elevating individuals known for disseminating misleading information.
“Promoting individuals recognized for spreading unreliable information compromises not only specific research initiatives but also overall public confidence in scientific inquiry,” they detailed. “Such actions suggest that fringe opinions deserve equal validation alongside established, evidence-backed consensus.”
Kennedy’s recent decisions signify a growing threat to the integrity of science and medicine, Jacobs and Booth argue. Drawing parallels to the work of other researchers, they urged the academic and health communities to actively defend evidence-based practices.
“At this pivotal moment, it is vital for public institutions and academic leadership to exhibit both courage and clarity,” they asserted. “For science to continue as a foundational pillar of public health, its guardians must be chosen not based on their propensity to stir controversy, but on their dedication to truth. This necessitates a rejection of the normalization of inaccurate information and a commitment to our collective obligation to uphold the integrity of public health.”
Source
arstechnica.com