# **Concerns Emerge Among Scientists Over National Cancer Institute’s New Review Policy**
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has recently introduced a policy mandating extra review for communications that involve “controversial, high-profile, or sensitive” subjects. This initiative has raised alarms among researchers and public health professionals, who worry it might obstruct scientific dialogue and postpone vital research publications.
## **Overview of the New Policy**
As per internal documents examined by *ProPublica*, NCI staff were advised last week to identify manuscripts, presentations, and other communications for review if they touched on any of 23 specific subjects. These encompass vaccines, fluoride, peanut allergies, autism, and obesity. The policy stipulates that all identified materials must be reviewed by an internal “clearance team” and might also be scrutinized by NIH and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Though it’s common for government entities to oversee communications on significant policy matters, experts assert that the extensive nature of this list is exceptional. Six anonymous NCI employees conveyed that the directive is remarkably unusual and could potentially impede scientific advancement.
## **Fears of Scientific Suppression and Delays**
Experts in public health and research express concern that the new policy might result in postponements of essential study publications or even deter scientists from exploring specific research avenues.
“This represents micromanagement at an extreme level,” stated Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
Linda Birnbaum, a previous director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, reinforced these worries, referring to the directive as “genuine interference in the scientific process” and comparing it to “Big Brother intimidation.”
An NCI employee remarked that the directive stemmed from the institute’s communications team and was not deliberated among leadership. There has been no response from NIH and HHS to media questions concerning the policy.
## **Influence from Politics and RFK Jr.’s Perspective**
The topics under scrutiny seem to resonate with the personal beliefs of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a long-time opponent of vaccines and a supporter of various medical conspiracy theories. Kennedy has consistently asserted that vaccines are linked to increasing autism rates—a claim thoroughly discredited by scientific evidence. He has also alleged a connection between aluminum in vaccines and childhood allergies and criticized water fluoridation as an “industrial waste” practice, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes it as a significant public health success.
During his confirmation hearings in January, Kennedy denied being “anti-vaccine” and stated he would not deter immunization against diseases like measles and polio. However, he sidestepped direct inquiries regarding the alleged link between vaccines and autism.
## **Effects on Public Health and Research Focus**
The directive has sparked fears that it might lead to self-censorship among researchers, who could steer clear of investigating or publishing works on politically charged topics. Experts warn that this may have dire implications for public health, especially in areas like infectious disease studies.
“The attention on bird flu and COVID is worrying,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. “Failing to be transparent with the public regarding infectious diseases won’t eliminate them or make them go away; in fact, it could exacerbate the situation.”
The policy also coincides with wider shifts in federal research funding. Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration has reduced funding for research institutions and slowed the NIH’s grant application process. Kennedy has proposed that NIH should redirect focus from infectious diseases like COVID-19 to chronic conditions such as diabetes and obesity—both of which are included on the NCI’s newly scrutinized topics list.
## **Final Thoughts**
The NCI’s recent scrutiny policy has ignited considerable discussion within the scientific community. While the full implications of the directive remain uncertain, researchers are anxious that it could suppress scientific exploration and delay the sharing of crucial health information. As the policy develops, scientists and public health proponents will be closely observing its influence on research openness and public health communication.
For further investigative coverage on this topic, head to *ProPublica* and subscribe to *The Big Story* newsletter.
