Editorial: CDC vaccine-autism study—right theme, wrong question

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently confirmed that it plans to study whether vaccines cause autism. The plan comes amid concerning outbreaks of measles, a highly contagious disease whose spread can be stopped by the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Between the beginning of the year and March 6, the virus infected 222 people across the country. The majority of the cases were reported among people in west Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, many of whom are unvaccinated school-age children. About 1 to 3 out of every 1,000 children infected with measles will die, according to the CDC. Over the past 2 months, two people have died from the disease: a Texas girl and an adult in New Mexico.

The MMR vaccine is a medical marvel. In 2000, the US declared that it had eliminated measles, a feat accomplished largely through vaccination. But a recent surge in vaccine hesitancy has allowed measles to rebound.

Take a look at the numbers. According to CDC estimates, MMR vaccination rates fell among US kindergartners from 95.2% for the 2019–20 school year to 92.7% for the 2023–24 school year. Research has repeatedly shown that 95% of individuals in a community must be immunized to prevent an outbreak.

False social media information and denial of vaccine efficacy among leaders, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), have driven such phenomena.

On March 5, at the confirmation hearing for Jay Bhattacharya, Donald J. Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, Bhattacharya said that he is “convinced” by the existing research that there is no link between MMR and autism. Still, he suggested that more research might alleviate fears among parents.

But past research has unequivocally proven that a vaccine-autism connection does not exist. Taxpayer money should not be used to study debunked scientific claims at a time when the US government has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from science research budgets.

There are serious concerns with hoping this study will resolve issues with vaccine hesitancy. Some may argue that having a perceived vaccine skeptic at the helm of the HHS gives the study a perverse credibility, but this is far from clear. Ironically, the NIH, an agency within the HHS, said recently it is terminating dozens of grants for studies on vaccine hesitancy and strategies that increase vaccination rates. Moreover, the CDC’s study could cause more unnecessary alarm among guardians of children who could benefit from MMR vaccines.

The agency’s decision also looks hypocritical to scientists. The US administration has cut the NIH’s budget, saying that the money is being wasted on what Republican senator Rand Paul called “frivolous” science at the nomination hearing for Bhattacharya. It is easy to make fun of studies exploring the propensity of lonely rats to use cocaine. But scientific research advances by slowly chipping away at uncertainty. So, effectively using funds may mean starting with a specific question on responses in rats and then progressing to human treatment trials.

A sound funding policy also requires an understanding of when replicability is a problem and when it is not. Bill Cassidy, a Republican senator, told his fellow lawmakers at Bhattacharya’s hearing that the issue of whether vaccines are linked to autism has been studied exhaustively, and the science is conclusive. There is no link.

By contrast, where public health agencies need help is understanding how to effectively reach people hesitant to get vaccines and address inaccurate but persistent narratives. In the midst of an outbreak in which lives are at stake, the opportunity costs of studying the wrong question are heartbreakingly high.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this week’s editorial, lead contributor is Aayushi Pratap

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.