NIH Scientific Freedom Lecture: Key Takeaways

On October 28, 2026, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) hosted a Scientific Freedom Lecture featuring biostatistician and epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff, PhD. Titled Science Is Under Attack: How Can We Save It?, the presentation examined declining public trust in science, pandemic policies, vaccination, and scientific transparency.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, introduced the lecture and moderated an audience discussion. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff previously collaborated with epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta, DPhil, on the controversial 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated focused protection of people at greater risk from COVID-19 rather than widespread restrictions.

Pandemic Policies and Public Trust

Kulldorff opened with data showing declining public confidence in healthcare and scientific institutions. He reported that the proportion of Americans expressing high confidence in physicians and hospitals fell from approximately 70% in 2020 to 40% in 2024. He argued that pandemic policies contributed to this decline and that rebuilding trust would require scientists to acknowledge decisions that may have undermined public confidence.

He highlighted Sweden’s pandemic response, which kept schools, restaurants, and many public spaces open while implementing other measures to limit transmission. Presenting international excess mortality comparisons, Kulldorff noted that Sweden experienced approximately 4.4% excess mortality during the period examined, compared with a European average of 11%. He interpreted Sweden’s relatively low excess mortality as evidence that widespread lockdowns were unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Kulldorff also argued that decisions made by a relatively small group of scientific and public health leaders had affected confidence in the broader research community, including scientists who were not involved in pandemic policymaking.

During the audience discussion, attendees questioned whether Sweden’s outcomes could be attributed to lockdown policies alone. They highlighted differences in healthcare systems, social protections, voluntary distancing, and socioeconomic conditions. Kulldorff acknowledged some of these differences but maintained that the United States would have benefited from investing more in medical care for people with COVID-19 rather than lockdown measures.

Measles Outbreaks and Childhood Vaccination

Kulldorff attributed the resurgence of measles largely to disruptions in routine childhood vaccination during COVID-19 lockdowns. Presenting data showing substantial declines in MMR vaccinations beginning in 2020, he argued that insufficient catch-up vaccination left more children susceptible to infection. He criticized public health officials for failing to acknowledge what he considered a direct connection between pandemic restrictions and subsequent outbreaks.

During the audience discussion, Kulldorff also suggested that frustration surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates contributed to broader vaccine hesitancy, potentially affecting measles vaccination rates. He argued that these developments, alongside policies excluding unvaccinated children from schools, had further undermined public trust in public health institutions.

HPV Vaccination, Cancer Prevention, and Dosing Recommendations

Kulldorff also discussed declines in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that the consequences of missed vaccinations may not become apparent for decades. Using cervical cancer incidence data from Denmark, he illustrated how the benefits of HPV vaccination emerge over time and argued that disruptions in preventive healthcare could contribute to future cancer cases.

He highlighted the NIH-funded ESCUDDO clinical trial, published in December 2025, which found that a single dose of either of two HPV vaccines was noninferior to two doses in preventing persistent infections with HPV types 16 and 18. Kulldorff praised the research as an example of high-quality NIH science with the potential to improve vaccination access and reduce healthcare costs.

Kulldorff questioned why U.S. recommendations continued to call for multiple HPV vaccine doses and, when asked about the rationale, acknowledged that he did not know. Federal health officials had announced a revised childhood immunization schedule recommending a single HPV vaccine dose in January 2026. However, a federal court order in March stayed those revisions, leaving the CDC’s July 2025 recommendations in effect. Under that schedule, two doses are recommended for most individuals beginning HPV vaccination before age 15, while three doses are recommended for those starting at age 15 or older and for people with certain immunocompromising conditions.

Kulldorff also criticized earlier HPV vaccine trials for using aluminum-adjuvant control groups rather than saline placebos, questioning whether their designs adequately addressed safety concerns. He connected these concerns to his broader argument that scientific institutions must be transparent about research findings and responsive to emerging evidence.

Scientific Freedom, Open Debate, and Research Transparency

Throughout the lecture, Kulldorff emphasized the importance of scientific disagreement, acknowledging uncertainty, and recognizing the limits of one’s expertise. He argued that scientists should be willing to debate colleagues with opposing views rather than discourage challenges to established conclusions.

During the discussion, Bhattacharya distinguished between scientists making mistakes and institutions preventing scientific debate. Kulldorff responded that being wrong was not inherently the problem; rather, he criticized excessive confidence and unwillingness to consider alternative interpretations.

The discussion also addressed scientific publishing. Kulldorff advocated greater access to study protocols, research data, preprints, and negative findings, arguing that selective publication can distort the scientific record and undermine public confidence.

An audience member questioned whether reducing publication gatekeeping might weaken scientific scrutiny. Kulldorff agreed that research should undergo rigorous evaluation and emphasized the importance of allowing scientists to publicly critique published findings.

NIH Plans a Journal Dedicated to Research Replication

During the audience discussion, Bhattacharya described plans to establish a full-scale journal dedicated to replication studies, including research that fails to reproduce previously published findings. He explained that the journal would aim to make replication a more routine and constructive part of scientific research, with opportunities for open evaluation and discussion.

The proposed journal aligns with NIH’s broader ⁠Strengthening Replication and Reproducibility of NIH-funded Research initiative, which seeks to improve research transparency, support independent replication studies, and develop incentives that recognize rigorous scientific work. NIH has also outlined plans to establish infrastructure that supports replication research and scientific debate.

The discussion also addressed whether preprints and other forms of scientific communication could receive greater recognition in grant applications and evaluations of research productivity. Bhattacharya acknowledged their importance but said it was too early to specify how NIH might incorporate them into future assessments.

Watch Event Recording