The refrain of “Follow the science!” became a fixture during the coronavirus pandemic, championed by media outlets and political figures to underscore the necessity of heeding scientific expertise. However, the adherence to this mantra seems conspicuously absent in the contentious realm of gender transitions for minors. A recent revelation by the New York Times has thrust a glaring spotlight on this inconsistency, as it unveils the actions of Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy. Funded by taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health, her decade-long study on the effects of puberty blockers is now shrouded in secrecy, its results conspicuously withheld.
Olson-Kennedy’s research, which involved administering puberty blockers to 95 children experiencing gender dysphoria, aimed to affirm the belief that such treatments improve mental health outcomes. Yet the decision to withhold findings from the very public that financed the study, amounting to a staggering $9.7 million, raises profound questions about transparency and accountability within taxpayer-funded projects.
Olson-Kennedy’s comment about not wanting the study results to be “weaponized” hints at a deeper issue: the potential misalignment of scientific inquiry with political agendas. Such a stance not only undermines the integrity of scientific research but also betrays the public trust, especially when taxpayer dollars are involved. This selective storytelling deprives parents, lawmakers, and the medical community of critical data needed to make informed decisions about the healthcare of children.
Clinical psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson, a noted authority in gender medicine, denounces this trend of suppressing inconvenient science. Her assertion that science should illuminate rather than obscure is a call for genuine inquiry free from ideological constraints. By withholding comprehensive data, the current approach risks breeding suspicion and diminishes the trustworthiness of scientific institutions.
The response from activist circles further complicates the discourse. For instance, major organizations like GLAAD pivoted their critique of the New York Times to focus on identity representation rather than the substance of withholding critical information from a significant taxpayer-funded study. This maneuver sidesteps the core issue: why are results from a significant public investment being kept from those who financed it?
Congressional response spearheaded by Rep. Lisa McClain underscores the necessity for oversight. Her demand for an investigation by the NIH into this research obfuscation exemplifies the need for accountability when public funds are at stake. Providing transparency in such research is critical, especially given the profound implications it holds for policy decisions and the welfare of children.
The political landscape, especially among conservatives, is becoming increasingly critical of these practices. As public sentiment shifts and awareness of the scale of “gender-affirming” medical procedures performed on minors grows, the demand for a more transparent and accountable scientific process is likely to intensify.
This situation presents a defining moment. It challenges policymakers and the public to reconcile the need for scientific integrity with the pressures of modern political ideologies. The implications of disregarding “follow the science” are vast, transcending the bounds of this particular debate to reflect broader cultural and ethical crossroads. As this dialogue persists, clarity, transparency, and accountability will be central in guiding us through these charged waters of policy and identity.
