'Gold Standard' Science or Political Rhetoric?
President Donald Trump and his Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have repeatedly emphasised their commitment to following what they term 'gold standard' science in government decision-making. This message has been a central feature of news conferences, hearings, and executive orders.
However, a chorus of scientists and public health experts contends that the administration's actions frequently contradict this stated goal. Instead of relying on rigorous evidence, they argue that officials are often making claims and setting policy based on preliminary studies, fringe science, or personal hunches.
Policy Shifts and Expert Alarm
A recent and stark example emerged when the nation's top public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), altered its website to contradict the long-standing scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism. This move sent shockwaves through the medical community.
Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who resigned from the CDC in August, offered a pointed critique. He told reporters that Kennedy appears to be “going from evidence-based decision making to decision-based evidence making.”
This incident is part of a broader pattern. In September, President Trump directly advised pregnant women and parents against using acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, based on weak or non-existent evidence. He also repeatedly made the fraudulent and long-disproven link between autism and vaccines, attributing his stance to a personal feeling. “I have always had very strong feelings about autism and how it happened and where it came from,” he stated.
Further concerns were raised at a two-day meeting this fall, where Kennedy's handpicked vaccine advisers to the CDC questioned the necessity of vaccinating babies against hepatitis B. This inoculation has been proven for years to drastically reduce disease and death. Dr. Flor Munoz, a paediatric infectious disease expert, noted that the safety concerns being raised were “not based on evidence other than case reports and anecdotes.”
Amid the country's worst year for measles in over three decades, Kennedy publicly cast doubt on the measles vaccine, championed unproven treatments, and suggested that the unvaccinated children who died were “already sick.”
What 'Gold Standard' Science Really Means
Scientists stress that the process for approving medicines and vaccines in the United States has historically been built upon genuine gold standard science. This rigorous and transparent system has led much of the world to follow America's regulatory lead.
The term “gold standard” refers to the best possible evidence that can be gathered for a given question. “It completely depends on what question you’re trying to answer,” explained Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician at Stanford University.
The most rigorous form of evidence is the randomised clinical trial, which uses randomisation and often blinding to eliminate bias. However, such trials are not always ethical or possible, such as when withholding a proven vaccine from a control group would be unconscionable.
In these cases, researchers turn to observational studies, which have been instrumental in discoveries like fluoride preventing cavities. A key limitation, however, is that they often can only show correlation, not causation. This is the case with some studies examining a potential link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism; more have found no connection, and such studies cannot determine if the painkiller itself or the underlying health issue was the true factor.
Real-world evidence gathered from large populations is also immensely valuable for confirming a treatment's effectiveness and detecting extremely rare side effects. This type of data has consistently proven that vaccines provide extraordinary protection and are safe. “If vaccines caused a wave of chronic disease, our safety systems — which can detect 1-in-a-million events — would have seen it. They haven’t,” Dr. Scott testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee in September.
True scientific rigour also demands transparency, including pre-set hypotheses, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and peer review. This allows science to be self-correcting. Dr. Steven Woloshin of Dartmouth College noted, “I’m only able to do that because they’re transparent about what they did... That’s how science works.”
Finally, experts warn against the seductive power of anecdotes and single studies. While powerful, anecdotes are not data, and single studies must be viewed within the broader context of existing research. “Science isn’t about reaching certainty,” Woloshin said. “It’s about trying to reduce uncertainty.”
