CAF will write to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), citing concerns about the potential chilling effect on academic participation in regulatory roles, after it recused its Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Professor Jacob George – who is also Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Dundee – from any further involvement in the Pathways puberty blocker clinical trial.
Last November the MHRA approved a request from King’s College London (KCL) to carry out a clinical trial of puberty blocker drugs. The proposed study forms part of the research programme developed following the Cass Review’s recommendations, which concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers in the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors was insufficient and recommended that any further use be confined to formally approved clinical research.
These drugs, which suppress the body’s natural pubertal development, were made subject to an indefinite ban on routine prescribing by the Health Secretary after the Commission on Human Medicines said they posed “an unacceptable safety risk” to children. Originally scheduled to start in April, the trial was to have involved 226 children, some as young as eight.
Professor George is reported to have raised serious safety and ethical concerns about the trial after taking up his MHRA role earlier this year. The regulator’s subsequent intervention led the Department of Health to announce that preliminary work on the clinical trial would be paused.
However, Professor George has now been removed from any further involvement after The Sunday Times reported on social media posts made prior to his appointment, in which he praised J.K. Rowling as a “treasure of our time”, criticised NHS staff who deny the “basic biological fact” that gender is set at birth, and remarked that society should not allow a “militant minority” of trans activists to undermine women’s “hard fought” rights.
Announcing his recusal, an MHRA spokesperson said: “Following the identification of social media posts made prior to his appointment, Prof Jacob George is recused from further involvement on the Pathways clinical trial as a precaution.”
In other words, there has been no finding of wrongdoing, and the justification for his removal appears instead to rest on concerns about perception rather than any demonstrated failure of impartiality.
Neither the Nolan Principles governing public office nor the Civil Service Code requires officials to be opinion-free. Impartiality requires that decisions are informed by evidence and responsive to contrary evidence, not that individuals have never expressed views on contested and unsettled public questions.
For CAF, the wider concern is the signal this sends beyond Whitehall. Academic careers – particularly in medicine and the life sciences – are built not only on publications, but on participation in regulatory panels, advisory committees and clinical trial leadership. If lawful views expressed on live public controversies can later trigger removal from such roles absent any proven partiality, researchers will draw rational conclusions about the career risks of speaking plainly.
That might sound far-fetched. But CAF’s own casework repeatedly reveals concerns about reputational risk and professional consequences in disputes involving sex and gender. The government-commissioned Sullivan Review (2025) likewise documented evidence of self-censorship and reluctance to pursue research relating to biological sex for fear of professional repercussions.
Decisions of this kind by a public regulator that routinely appoints academics to its board and to independent advisory committees risk reinforcing a climate of caution and self-censorship on campus.
CAF will therefore seek clarification from the MHRA on the standards governing precautionary recusal of academics appointed to regulatory and advisory roles, how “perception” is assessed, whether the current threshold for recusal is appropriately calibrated, and how consistency of application is ensured.
This article forms part of the Committee for Academic Freedom’s monitoring of developments in UK higher education. To receive monthly updates and analysis on cases affecting academic freedom, click the link and subscribe to our newsletter.