Latest news with #DonaldTrump-ordered
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
NHS puberty blocker trial ‘not ethical', finds Trump-backed review
An NHS puberty blocker trial is 'not ethical', according to a Donald Trump-ordered review of children's gender medicine. The US federal review goes even further than Britain's Cass Review by raising 'serious concerns about medical interventions' of any form in children and teenagers. Its Department of Health and Human Services concluded that 'the overall quality of evidence is very low' to justify giving puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to adolescents, including in trials such as the Pathways research planned by the NHS. The highly critical review likens the trial of puberty blockers by the health service to trying to test the harms of jumping out of a plane without a parachute. It was ordered by Mr Trump within days of taking office, having made gender ideology a central theme of his campaign in the run-up to the election. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health, which is responsible for public health research in the US and contributed to the report, said: 'Our duty is to protect our nation's children – not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions. 'We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.' The findings echo the Cass Review, led by retired paediatrician Baroness Cass, who said gender medicine had been built on 'shaky foundations' and called for an end to the medical and 'affirmative' approach to treating children with gender dysphoria. While the anonymous authors of the 409-page report agreed with Lady Cass that there was a lack of evidence to support the use of powerful puberty blockers in children, it went further by declaring that the potential for harms to children were known. They said that for the use of drugs in children experiencing gender confusion, 'the evidence base does not support strong conclusions about their effectiveness'. And that 'the evidence for harm is less uncertain', arguing that there is a clear biological basis for believing they carry significant risks, and that the lack of thorough studies into the harm caused does not mean it does not exist. 'We can be certain in the ordinary sense of 'certain' that these interventions cause harm, even if we do not have 'high certainty' evidence in the technical sense,' the report said, citing the 'experimental nature' of the interventions, including removing breasts or interfering with the reproductive system. The authors also liken the trialling of the drugs to an 'unethical parachute test'. It said: 'The likelihood of infertility when puberty blockers are provided at the early stage of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones does not have to be demonstrated in a clinical trial. This is because the mechanism is well understood and conducting a trial would amount to an unethical 'parachute test'.' The work builds on the work by Lady Cass and points to a 'a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks – including irreversible harms such as infertility – while finding very weak evidence of benefit'. The federal review also said attacks on Lady Cass by pro-trans US doctors were 'ridden with misrepresentations of the Cass review and contain multiple factual errors'. But while Lady Cass recommended a trial of the treatment to establish both benefits and harms, those in the US argued it 'may conflict with well-established ethical standards for human subjects research'. They cited recommendations from the World Medical Association that doctors must understand risks properly before beginning a trial, and point to the Nuremberg Code, which was drawn up in response to Nazi medical experiments and say trials should be designed so that 'the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment'. They said: 'It is not ethical to subject adolescents to hormonal and surgical interventions used in [child transition], even in a research trial, until and unless the state of the evidence suggests a favourable risk-benefit profile. 'The state of the science does not support a favourable risk/benefit profile, nor does it give researchers a basis for confidence that the risks of [treatment] can be satisfactorily managed.' The review was contributed to by medical doctors and ethical experts and made up of people across the political spectrum with underlying commitment to scientific principles. It also criticised the use of phrases such as 'assigned sex at birth', which suggested an 'arbitrary decision' rather than 'the observation of a characteristic present long before birth, namely the child's sex'. It claimed that activists 'go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the plain use of these [biological] words, and related words such as boy and girl'. An NHS spokesman said: 'As is the case with any rigorous academic study, the Pathways proposal has been subject to independent academic peer review and a review by the National Institute of Health and Care Research committee – ahead of progressing to the usual strict ethical and regulatory approvals, which ensure stringent safeguards in scientific research.'
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
NHS puberty blocker trial ‘not ethical', finds Trump-backed review
An NHS puberty blocker trial is 'not ethical', according to a Donald Trump-ordered review of children's gender medicine. The US federal review goes even further than Britain's Cass Review by raising 'serious concerns about medical interventions' of any form in children and teenagers. Its Department of Health and Human Services concluded that 'the overall quality of evidence is very low' to justify giving puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to adolescents, including in trials such as the Pathways research planned by the NHS. The highly critical review likens the trial of puberty blockers by the health service to trying to test the harms of jumping out of a plane without a parachute. It was ordered by Mr Trump within days of taking office, having made gender ideology a central theme of his campaign in the run-up to the election. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the National Institutes of Health, which is responsible for public health research in the US and contributed to the report, said: 'Our duty is to protect our nation's children – not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions. 'We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.' The findings echo the Cass Review, led by retired paediatrician Baroness Cass, who said gender medicine had been built on 'shaky foundations' and called for an end to the medical and 'affirmative' approach to treating children with gender dysphoria. While the anonymous authors of the 409-page report agreed with Lady Cass that there was a lack of evidence to support the use of powerful puberty blockers in children, it went further by declaring that the potential for harms to children were known. They said that for the use of drugs in children experiencing gender confusion, 'the evidence base does not support strong conclusions about their effectiveness'. And that 'the evidence for harm is less uncertain', arguing that there is a clear biological basis for believing they carry significant risks, and that the lack of thorough studies into the harm caused does not mean it does not exist. 'We can be certain in the ordinary sense of 'certain' that these interventions cause harm, even if we do not have 'high certainty' evidence in the technical sense,' the report said, citing the 'experimental nature' of the interventions, including removing breasts or interfering with the reproductive system. The authors also liken the trialling of the drugs to an 'unethical parachute test'. It said: 'The likelihood of infertility when puberty blockers are provided at the early stage of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones does not have to be demonstrated in a clinical trial. This is because the mechanism is well understood and conducting a trial would amount to an unethical 'parachute test'.' The work builds on the work by Lady Cass and points to a 'a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks – including irreversible harms such as infertility – while finding very weak evidence of benefit'. The federal review also said attacks on Lady Cass by pro-trans US doctors were 'ridden with misrepresentations of the Cass review and contain multiple factual errors'. But while Lady Cass recommended a trial of the treatment to establish both benefits and harms, those in the US argued it 'may conflict with well-established ethical standards for human subjects research'. They cited recommendations from the World Medical Association that doctors must understand risks properly before beginning a trial, and point to the Nuremberg Code, which was drawn up in response to Nazi medical experiments and say trials should be designed so that 'the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment'. They said: 'It is not ethical to subject adolescents to hormonal and surgical interventions used in [child transition], even in a research trial, until and unless the state of the evidence suggests a favourable risk-benefit profile. 'The state of the science does not support a favourable risk/benefit profile, nor does it give researchers a basis for confidence that the risks of [treatment] can be satisfactorily managed.' The review was contributed to by medical doctors and ethical experts and made up of people across the political spectrum with underlying commitment to scientific principles. It also criticised the use of phrases such as 'assigned sex at birth', which suggested an 'arbitrary decision' rather than 'the observation of a characteristic present long before birth, namely the child's sex'. It claimed that activists 'go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the plain use of these [biological] words, and related words such as boy and girl'. An NHS spokesman said: 'As is the case with any rigorous academic study, the Pathways proposal has been subject to independent academic peer review and a review by the National Institute of Health and Care Research committee – ahead of progressing to the usual strict ethical and regulatory approvals, which ensure stringent safeguards in scientific research.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
CBC
30-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
A U.S. brain drain could be Canada's brain gain
Over the last few months, academics and scientists in the U.S. have been scrambling to keep their footing on swiftly eroding ground, amid massive Donald Trump-ordered funding cuts and new restrictions. But although a weakening of the American scientific community has far-reaching impacts on the global academic landscape, experts say one side effect could be top talent from the U.S. coming to Canada. Already, some researchers, academics and scientists are making the journey — and some provinces and organizations in Canada are looking to reap the benefits. "The more questions and concerns emerge in the United States, the more opportunity there is for Canada to try and reassert its leadership in the world as a global research powerhouse," said Gabriel Miller, president and CEO of Universities Canada. A dominating force in academia The U.S. has long been a dominating force in the academic world, home to many of the most highly regarded universities in the world. But Trump has begun an aggressive campaign in his second term, increasingly targeting academia and scientific organizations in a bid to cut government spending and move against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. Over the last few months, the administration has slashed federal funding and restricted leading institutions from communicating with international counterparts. Trump has also issued executive orders that led to many organizations, like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deleting scientific data sets and censoring language. Most at risk are researchers whose work goes against the stated goals of the new administration. The Environmental Protection Agency terminated grant agreements worth $20 billion US for clean energy and climate-friendly projects earlier this month, and Canadian researchers applying to receive U.S. grant funding are now being asked to confirm that their projects contain no "DEI" elements, among other politically charged inquiries. "It's kind of an attack to what we're used to in university, academic freedom and the opportunity to inquire about any kind of topic," Rémi Quirion, Quebec's chief scientist, told CBC News. Against this backdrop, some academics in the U.S. have already decided to take their skills up north. Jason Stanley, a philosophy professor, recently left a position at Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing a "far-right regime" under Trump. Two other Yale historians also made the same move earlier this year. Timothy Snyder and Marci Shore, who are married, are on leave from Yale and slated to begin teaching courses at U of T's Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy in the fall. Snyder is the best-selling author of The Road to Unfreedom and On Tyranny, 20 Lessons From the 21st Century, the latter of which is about the need to stand up to authoritarianism when it threatens democracy. They're not the only American experts eyeing a switch to Canada. Though there isn't specific data at the moment, several in the Canadian research community, including university leaders and professors, are reporting increased interest from scientists working or training in the U.S., said Mona Nemer, Canada's chief science adviser. A U.S. crisis could be a Canadian opportunity Earlier this month, Quebec Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge announced that the province was actively looking to recruit scientific talent from the U.S. who are wary of what he called "the climate-skeptic directions that the White House is taking." "Every crisis brings opportunities," he said at an event held by the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations. For researchers in this field and others targeted with cuts, Canada could be an appealing alternative, said Quirion. In Quebec in particular, academic freedom is legally guaranteed, he said. (However, this came with its own controversy, as the law's creation was prompted by a debate over whether a professor should be suspended for saying a racial slur in a lesson.) Other provinces are also looking to attract U.S. workers. Both Manitoba and B.C. have launched campaigns within the last two months to attract more U.S. health-care professionals. Jennie Massey, a partner with executive search firm KBRS in New Brunswick, told CBC News earlier this month that she'd received 14 applications the morning after Trump's inauguration. Most were from academics looking to join Canada's universities and colleges, she said. Court challenges and backlash may have caused the U.S. administration to reverse some recent funding freezes, but the impacts on the field are lasting. "If your grant is stopped for a few months, it's really hard to basically keep coming back and keep the momentum on the research topic," Quirion said. "Very quickly you lose competitiveness or you lose interest also because you don't get enough support for that research project." Complications in pulling U.S. talent An ironic twist is that as some regions seek to woo more U.S. talent, Canada has been trying to cut down on international students and new permanent residents. In October, the federal government announced a reduction in immigration levels in a bid to relieve pressure on the housing market. Under this plan, more than 40 per cent of new permanent residents in 2025 will be temporary residents already living in Canada. A cap on international students, announced last year, has also triggered job cuts, lower enrollment and program cancellations at some post-secondary institutions due to the loss of revenue from international students' tuition fees, potentially impacting their ability to acquire new teaching talent. At this moment, Canada needs to invest more in pathways for U.S. talent to come to this country, Quirion said. Existing pathways could be expanded on, he suggested, citing the Canada Excellence Research Chair, which supports Canadian universities with investments of $10 million over seven years to attract researchers. And the question of handling academic freedom is still contentious in some regions of Canada. Earlier this month, Alberta exempted post-secondary institutions from a bill that would have required them to get provincial approval before entering into agreements with the federal government, after pressure from academic organizations. And a debate is currently unfolding in Nova Scotia over a proposed bill which critics say would give the government too much control over university funding. Still, Canada has a unique opportunity right now, Miller said. "The benefit of this moment is the reminder to Canada that we should treasure our outstanding research being done in universities and that we can take advantage of this moment to reassert that we're gonna be leaders and that we're gonna win in the global competition for talent.
