Why We Must Prioritize Science and Intelligence in Public Health Amid Trump’s Controversial Appointment

I have a brother named Joe who knows a lot. He’s a scientist and an expert in toxicology. He even teaches about it around the world. Joe has written a notable book called “Calculated Risks: The Toxicity and Human Health Risks of Chemicals in Our Environment,” which many people use for learning about public health.

Over the years, I’ve asked Joe many questions, both as a curious sibling and a journalist. Questions like, “Is Equal safe to consume?” or “How about Splenda?” It’s definitely helpful to have a toxicologist in the family!

Recently, I sought his advice regarding the U.S. Surgeon General’s warning on alcohol and cancer risks. Joe replied cautiously. He said he hadn’t looked into the latest studies but had some insights. He explained that many studies depend on people self-reporting their alcohol intake, which is often inaccurate. Many tend to downplay how much they drink, and that can skew the results.

Joe continued, pointing out that while heavy drinking has known risks for certain cancers, the dangers of having one or two drinks a day are less clear. He mentioned that alcohol does not damage our genes like some harmful chemicals do. He concluded that if there are health benefits to moderate drinking, they are likely quite small. “I won’t give up my daily drink,” he mentioned, noting that a standard drink across different types—beer, wine, cocktails—contains about 14 milliliters of alcohol.

He suggested the Surgeon General focus more on the real dangers of excessive drinking rather than risk associated with low levels. This perspective aligns with another expert he consulted, Harvey Clewell, who agreed that the way studies measure alcohol intake often leads to confusion about the true health risks. Clewell believes it’s better to practice moderation instead of complete abstinence.

I share this conversation not just to clarify Joe’s views on alcohol but to underscore the importance of scientific knowledge in our society. It’s crucial to have a clear understanding of health risks, especially in times when misinformation spreads easily, as we saw during the pandemic. Many people, including some in leadership roles, often dismiss scientific facts, which can be detrimental to public health.

As we look ahead, there are concerning trends related to public health policy. The nomination of figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to significant health positions is alarming. His history of anti-vaccine rhetoric threatens the foundation of public health initiatives and undermines years of scientific progress. This isn’t just a disagreement over policies; it reflects a growing trend toward placing fringe beliefs above credible science.

With alarming plans for federal health leadership, there’s a risk we’ll see a focus on misinformation rather than on protecting public health. It’s important to remember the values of science, education, and integrity, so we can make informed decisions about our health and the future of our communities.