Why Scientists May Be Fearful Of Speaking Out About Trump's Autism Claims

(MENAFN- The Conversation) “Are you making good health decisions?” reads one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. meme on social media, a slogan printed against an image of a smiling US health secretary. Such social media posts invariably invite lively comments beneath them, but the situation is deadly serious.

On 22 September, Donald Trump and RFK Jr. publicly proposed a link between paracetamol – commonly referred to in the US by the brand name Tylenol – and autism. The paracetamol link has also been shown, through rigorous research, to be false .

It's far from the first falsehood about science to be presented at the highest levels of the US government. While RFK Jr. denies being anti-vaccination, he has repeatedly stated debunked claims about supposed vaccine harm.

The highly politicised nature of such claims and the current political environment may lead to a reluctance among some scientists to speak out publicly. But it's imperative that they continue to defend science in the public arena.

With wall-to-wall coverage of such issues, it is easy for the considered views of experts to get drowned out – and headlines rarely lead with the perspectives of researchers. The speed of the news cycle can also mean that the story has moved on by the time they are in a position to comment.

Science communicators weigh up the published evidence on a topic of controversy, factoring in multiple perspectives. They also talk about when science gets it wrong – and when retractions of journal articles are needed.

Toxic environment

But online toxicity and hostility on social media have increased to the extent that both scientists and, indeed, science journalists have a real fear of writing about topics even where they have strong expertise. And with the US government making major cuts to research funding and targeting politicised areas such as climate science in particular, some may be inclined to stay quiet or self-censor to avoid losing their grants.

We've also seen government scientists removed from their positions by the Trump administration. In June 2025, RFK Jr. removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

In August 2025, the director of the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Monarez, was fired for what she says was refusing to dismiss vaccine policy officials. The health secretary says it was because he didn't trust her.

President Trump made the Tylenol-autism claims while flanked by his health secretary RFK Jr. FRANCIS CHUNG / POOL

Political decisions such as these and others can have a chilling effect on scientists and the media, where commentators may feel the need to tread carefully. Yet this makes it all the more urgent that everyone involved in communicating science to the public ups their game and defend expertise.

Nevertheless, when the politics are combined with the toxicity of debate in the public sphere, particularly on social media, it can make conveying expert opinions very challenging. Science communicators have often developed valuable and thoughtful methods to put the message across to the public.

Platforms like Bluesky, which give users greater control over their interactions, have been one such attempt for a civil space to discuss science. Yet, on other platforms, it is easy to see how valuable efforts such as these could sour amid the kinds of vitriolic attacks come from anonymous sources who seem to act with impunity online.

There is arguably a place to fight fire with fire, including with the use of ridicule . Examples include California governor Gavin Newsom's mockery of Trump tweets or South Park satirising the US administration in the basest of fashions.

The longer-term goals in controlling false scientific statements involve increasing media literacy, prebunking – debunking myths and conspiracy theories before they spread rapidly – and setting out “nudge” effects , where there are several choices offered to people that eventual lead to a change of behaviour, as happens in advertising.

If a scientific or innovation programme has the resources, subvertising techniques – where spoofs and parodies of corporate ads are created to critique their messages – have been used effectively against the tobacco lobby and oil companies.

It may help for professional bodies, universities and other institutions involved in communicating science to maintain vigilance on contentious claims so that they are well prepared when these topics blow up in the media. The tylenol-autism claim is not something that had been widely shared in mainstream publications before now. But science communicators should be ready for the next time it comes up.

MENAFN26092025000199003603ID1110115537