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.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe