Professor Withdrawn from Puberty Blockers Trial Following Bias Accusations
The professor who intentionally halted a controversial puberty blockers trial has been removed from any further involvement after facing serious allegations of bias. Professor Jacob George, who was appointed as the chief medical and scientific officer at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in January, raised new concerns about the Pathways trial in February, leading to its suspension by the Department of Health.
Social Media Posts Reveal Gender-Critical Stance
Scientists and lawyers have since questioned Professor George's involvement, pointing to crucial misunderstandings about clinical trials and medical law. The professor intervened five months after the trial was approved by his colleagues and over a month after it was scheduled to commence, citing concerns that included participants as young as 10 years old.
However, the recent emergence of a series of social media posts by George indicates a strong gender-critical position. In now-deleted posts, the professor criticized the NHS for what he called 'well-meaning idiocy' in denying the 'basic biological fact' that gender is determined at birth.
George, a professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Dundee, praised author JK Rowling as a 'treasure of our time' after she publicly supported the Supreme Court's ruling that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex. In another post, following test results confirming Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khelif as a woman, he stated that 'the denial of basic biological fact is concerning.'
MHRA Response and Trial Details
An MHRA spokesperson commented: 'Civil servants, like anyone else, hold personal views but must also carry out their roles in line with the civil service core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity, and impartiality. While there is no evidence to suggest that decisions taken were not impartial, Professor Jacob George is recused from further involvement in the Pathways clinical trial as a precaution.'
The Pathways trial involved testing the effects of puberty-blocking drugs on 226 children at a cost of £10.7 million, with participant recruitment due to start in January. The trial was commissioned following a recommendation by Baroness Cass, who authored a critical report into NHS gender services that led to the closure of the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Hospital in London.
Baroness Cass's report found insufficient evidence that puberty blockers help children with gender incongruence and recommended banning the drugs for routine use, instead calling for a rigorous clinical trial to determine their efficacy. She described the MHRA's intervention as 'completely bizarre,' arguing that the trial pause was politically motivated rather than based on science.
Legal and Ethical Concerns Raised
In a letter to the Pathways trial leaders at King's College London on February 13, George raised concerns about the age of participants, suggesting it should be raised from 10 to 14. However, one scientist noted that most participants would have already begun puberty by 14, rendering the trial redundant and unethical.
George also questioned 'Gillick competence,' a legal principle used to assess if a child under 16 can consent to treatment. Sir Jonathan Montgomery, a professor of healthcare law at University College London and former chair of the Health Research Authority, clarified that this principle does not apply to clinical trials, a stance supported by a 2021 Court of Appeal case involving Keira Bell.
Ms. Bell, who was prescribed puberty blockers at 16 and later underwent a double mastectomy before realizing it was a mistake, stated: 'It's been a long time coming, but I believe an important change is occurring... I just hope that what this will mean is the end of the medicalisation of children.'
Montgomery criticized the MHRA, saying: 'It reflects badly on the MHRA that they seem not to understand the law governing their work. The reference to Gillick competence suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of clinical trials regulations.' The MHRA has contested this claim.
Ongoing Discussions and Support for George
Trial leaders have met with the MHRA twice last week to resolve the issues and are scheduled for further discussions. Meanwhile, Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at the sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, defended George, arguing that his position aligns with mainstream views and that he should be reinstated immediately.
Dr. Max Davie, a consultant paediatrician formerly with the NHS Children and Young People's Gender Service, told The Sunday Times: 'The tweets by Professor George give a clear indication of his personal views on the topic. He is quite at liberty to hold whatever views on gender identity he may, but what he cannot do is allow these views to affect the fulfilment of his public duty. To be clear, there is no compelling scientific reason to halt the Pathways trial.'
