The MHRA has recused its chief scientist from the Pathways puberty blockers trial over old social media posts. If personal views disqualify someone from overseeing this research, we need to be asking that question in every direction.
Dr Helen Webberley, gender specialist and medical educator
Yesterday, the MHRA issued a statement confirming that Professor Jacob George, its Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, has been recused from any further involvement in the Pathways clinical trial. The reason? Social media posts he made before he was even appointed to the role. His account has since been deleted, and the story was broken by journalists who clearly went looking for something to find.
Let that land for a moment. The most senior scientist at the UK medicines regulator has been removed from overseeing a clinical trial, not because of anything he did in his role, but because of views he expressed in his own time before he held the position.
What happened
The MHRA statement says that Professor George has been recused from the Pathways trial “as a precaution” following the identification of social media posts made before his appointment. It also confirms that the MHRA will continue to meet with King’s College London to work through next steps on the trial, which was paused last week.
We do not know exactly what those social media posts said, because the account has been deleted. What we do know is that journalists went digging, found something they felt was newsworthy, and the MHRA acted swiftly to remove him.
The principle is important, so let us apply it fairly
Here is what I want to say clearly: if the principle is that personal views should not influence the oversight of clinical trials, then I agree. Of course I do. Regulators must be impartial. Science must be protected from ideology. Decisions about the safety of medicines must be grounded in evidence, not opinion.
That principle matters enormously. It should apply to everyone involved in the regulation of this trial, to everyone who has contributed to the decision to pause it, and to everyone whose public statements may have created pressure on the process.
Because right now, the scrutiny is flowing in only one direction. A senior scientist has been removed for what appear to have been views sympathetic to the wellbeing of trans young people. Meanwhile, those who have publicly campaigned against this trial, who have made no secret of their opposition to gender-affirming care, and who have applied sustained political and media pressure on the regulatory process, continue unchallenged.
Who else should we be asking about?
If personal views expressed on social media are enough to disqualify someone from involvement in a clinical trial, then we need to be consistent. We need to ask whether the same standard is being applied to those who have spoken publicly against the trial, against puberty blockers, or against transgender healthcare more broadly.
We need to ask whether the decision to pause the trial, which came just a week ago, was itself influenced by the personal views of individuals within the regulatory system or by the relentless pressure of campaigners and media voices who have made their opposition very clear.
It is also worth remembering what puberty blockers actually are. They are a medicine. They are prescribed to an individual young person, under medical supervision, to pause a puberty that is causing them distress. They have no impact whatsoever on the rights of women. They do not affect single-sex spaces, they do not change sporting categories, they do not alter legal definitions. They are a medical intervention for a young person in need of help, and yet they have become a lightning rod for a debate that has nothing to do with them.
This trial was approved through proper regulatory channels. It received ethical approval. It was designed to provide the very evidence that critics have been demanding. It was the only route through which trans young people could access puberty blockers on the NHS. Now it has been paused, its chief scientific overseer has been removed, and the young people who were hoping for access to care are once again left waiting.
What I want you to take away from this
I am not saying that regulators should be free to bring their personal opinions into their professional work. I am saying the exact opposite. Personal views must not influence public duty, and that standard must be applied equally and transparently.
If we accept the principle that bias disqualifies someone from regulatory involvement, then we must look at where bias is actually shaping outcomes. We must ask who is driving the decisions that are causing real harm to real children and young people, right now, today.
Because from where I am standing, the bias that is doing the most damage is not coming from a scientist who may have expressed negative views on trans people on social media. It is coming from a system that has allowed political and ideological pressure to override evidence, delay care, and treat the wellbeing of trans young people as something that can simply be put on hold.
If this resonated with you, please share it. The more people who see this, the harder it becomes to keep applying these standards in only one direction.
Source: MHRA statement on Pathways clinical trial, 27 February 2026: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-pathways-clinical-trial
