Public Health Experts Raise Alarm Over Censorship and Misinformation Threats

Public health experts have voiced growing concerns about unprecedented censorship and misinformation challenges at a recent Harvard symposium, pointing to what they describe as a fundamentally altered landscape for scientific research and communication in the U.S.

At the 9th Cutter Symposium held at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on May 8, Alfredo Morabia, editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), described troubling developments he has witnessed since January, including the dismantling of key health programs, gutting of health agencies, cancellation of hundreds of research grants, and penalties imposed on universities.

“We are in a completely different situation” from where we’ve been before, said Morabia, who also serves as professor of epidemiology at the Barry Commoner Center, Queens College, CUNY, and professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health.

Morabia revealed that authors of already-accepted manuscripts have requested to remove their names, strike certain words from titles or abstracts, or even withdraw entire articles because they dealt with topics currently disfavored by the Trump administration.

“It was rapidly clear to me that there was no way I could answer positively to any of those requests,” Morabia said, describing such changes as “equivalent to censorship” and “a slippery slope” that he refused to traverse. His concerns prompted him to write an editorial in AJPH explaining his position.

While epidemiology has faced periodic attempts to limit or censor scientific research throughout history – such as during the Cold War when the government downplayed radiation health risks, or during the AIDS epidemic when conservatives delayed acknowledgment of the crisis – Morabia argued that current government actions are unprecedented in the United States.

He cited numerous examples, including the removal of certain words and topics from government websites, rescinding of grants related to so-called “woke” topics, dismantling of health monitoring and data collection systems, and elimination of scores of health programs. “This is a real threat, not something you can take lightly,” he warned. “And where’s the limit?”

The symposium also featured Issa Dahabreh, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard Chan School and methods editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and Stefanie Friedhoff, associate professor at Brown University and interim director of the Information Futures Lab.

Friedhoff discussed the complexity of measuring the impact of health misinformation online. She noted that while exposure to false claims about vaccines has increased – citing a recent Kaiser poll showing the percentage of people exposed to false claims about the measles vaccine jumped from 18% to 33% over the past year – simply being exposed doesn’t necessarily indicate harm.

What is changing, according to Friedhoff, is public attitudes toward vaccine mandates. Compared to 2019, more adults now believe parents should be able to decline MMR vaccinations for their children. This shift is influenced by influential leaders voicing concerns and social group pressures rather than misinformation alone.

“We bring our histories, we bring what we’ve learned, and then we engage with information. But it is not clear cut that misinformation harms everybody the same way,” Friedhoff explained.

To address these challenges, she advocated for collaborating with trusted community messengers like churches and food banks, using accessible language, addressing varying literacy levels, and sharing resonant stories. “Solutions have to start at the local level,” she emphasized. “We need to build relationships, collaborations, and a movement for public health.”

Dahabreh focused on the importance of precise language regarding causality in observational studies. He warned that imprecise terminology can create what he called “methodological misinformation,” when words like “induce” or “modify” incorrectly suggest causation. In a recent JAMA special communication, Dahabreh and editor-in-chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo proposed a structured approach for using causal language to improve communication between authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.

The Cutter Lectures, covering preventive medicine topics, have been held since 1912 through a bequest from Harvard Medical School graduate John Clarence Cutter. Albert Hofman, Stephen B. Kay Family Professor of Public Health and Clinical Epidemiology and chair of Harvard’s Department of Epidemiology, moderated the discussion.

As public health faces these unprecedented challenges, the speakers emphasized that protecting scientific integrity and effectively communicating accurate health information remains essential to the field’s mission and public trust.