A Hollow Promise: The Reality of "Gold Standard Science"
When the President selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, he proclaimed the return of "Gold Standard Scientific Research" in our country. This was followed by the signing of the "Restoring Gold Standard Science" executive order, which led numerous agencies to issue reports on how their scientific work conformed to this new "gold standard". This term has since been frequently used in public statements, publications, and online posts by administration officials.
On the surface, the "gold standard science" defined by the administration includes nine principles that any scientist would agree with. These include reproducibility, transparency, acknowledgment of errors and uncertainties, collaboration, skepticism, falsifiable hypotheses, impartial peer review, acceptance of negative results, and freedom from conflicts of interest.
The Reality of "Gold Standard Science"
However, critics argue that this term is often used to favor desired outcomes over conflicting evidence. Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst at a non-profit advocacy group, stated that the "gold standard science" is misleading, as it endorses principles that are already standard in the scientific community.
The same executive order that introduced this term also abolished all scientific integrity policies instituted during the previous administration. This has made it more difficult to conduct and publish scientific research without the threat of political interference.
Undermining Public Trust in Science
The executive order attributes a decrease in public trust in science to events during the COVID-19 pandemic. It mentions instances where government agencies allegedly used or promoted scientific information in a misleading manner. The order argues that scientific policy-making should be guided solely by "Gold Standard Science" and not by political agendas or ideologies.
However, critics argue that the term "gold standard science" is being used selectively, based on context. Dr. Daniel Jernigan, a former CDC director, expressed concerns that the new leadership was not following an "evidence-based approach".
Changes to Vaccine Advisory Committee
Jernigan pointed at the changes made to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the CDC on vaccinations. The committee previously followed a set of guidelines known as the Evidence to Recommendations framework. However, Kennedy replaced all members of the committee with a group leaning towards vaccine skepticism.
The new committee has largely disregarded the previous framework and now considers evidence of questionable quality along with large randomized controlled trials. This was evident in their first meeting, where they heard a flawed presentation from a vaccine skeptic. The committee eventually voted against recommending further vaccines that contain thimerosal, a preservative eliminated from childhood vaccines in 2001.
Impacts on Vaccine Research
Jernigan pointed out that the acting CDC director and National Institutes of Health director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, continues to withhold a study indicating that COVID-19 vaccines reduced virus-related hospitalizations by 55%. He reportedly wants to wait for a randomized clinical trial, which is often cited as the "gold standard" for determining an intervention's effectiveness. However, this method is costly and time-consuming for evaluating the success of seasonal flu or COVID-19 shots.
Jernigan believes that accepting a lower standard of evidence for potential vaccine side effects than for their apparent benefits is not a scientific approach. He argues that scientific evidence should not be determined by personal ideologies.
Evolution of "Gold Standard Science"
The term "gold standard science" has been used for decades to describe top-quality research methods, but it is not as reliable a metaphor as it may seem. Unlike in finance where the gold standard fixes a currency's value, in science, nothing is fixed. Old conclusions and beliefs are constantly being revised as new evidence emerges.
David Blumenthal, a professor at a leading school of public health, mentioned that the "gold standard science" of the past could be considered malpractice today due to constant innovation. He believes that the "gold standard" might change again in the future.