New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

2 Words Trigger CDC to Stay Quiet

Researchers and administrators at the CDC dare not utter the words guns or firearms for fear of budget cuts from Congress, according to health policy researcher David Hemenway.

 

PhotoDisc/Getty Images

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“CDC is afraid is afraid to fund firearms research.”

David Hemenway, professor of health policy at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health.

“Twenty years ago they were doing a tiny amount of funding for firearms research, $2.6 million a year, $2.6 million a year total. This was too much for the gun lobby and Republicans in Congress and they attacked the CDC and now CDC does no funding of firearms research. Zero.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Hemenway spoke February 17th about gun violence research at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston

“CDC is not expressively prohibited from funding firearms research, but they’re correctly quite fearful because they know they’ll be brought up before Congress and berated and their funding will be cut if they ever fund firearms research. Researchers, staff at the Centers for Disease Control are afraid to say the word guns or firearms at major meetings that I’ve been at for the last 20 years.

“The director of the CDC, of our major public health agency, we’ve had mass shooting after mass shooting in the United States, and what has he said? And I don’t blame him at all, but what has he said about the mass shootings in the United States? He has said not a single word. And for good reason. Because he knows if he says anything about guns, funding will be cut.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe