A recent health policy statement put forth by the Trump administration has come under intense scrutiny from a range of specialists, including scientists, public health experts, and media personnel. The primary source of contention pertains to the administration relying heavily on dubious citations, many of which appear to be generated using artificial intelligence technologies. Critics argue that the information is selectively presented to favor a non-regulatory, individual-centric approach to healthcare in America. The contentious report, termed the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA) report, was publicized on May 22 and almost instantly came under fire for its questionable references and the existence of phantom studies.
The citations included in the report were characterized by having ‘oaicite’ embedded in their URLs. It is worth noting that this particular tag is commonly associated with content that is created using tools powered by OpenAI, such as ChatGPT. Alarmingly, these citations could not be validated and, in many instances, were outright fabrications. NOTUS was the first to highlight this glaring issue, claiming that seven of the listed sources in the report’s initial version were nonexistent.
In spite of the uproar over this lack of authenticity, the administration uploaded a revised version of the report on May 29. This version replaced a few of the invented citations but fell significantly short of addressing the fundamental flaws in the report’s overall approach. This issue wasn’t isolated to just the citations; there was further controversy over the misrepresentation of authorship. For instance, Guohua Li, a reputed professor at Columbia University, was named as the co-author of a study related to the mental health of children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Terrifyingly, Guohua and his alleged co-author, researcher Noah Kreski, rejected these claims outright.
Katherine Keyes, another respected epidemiologist, voiced her concerns as well, stating the importance of proper citation practices in conducting and presenting rigorous scientific investigations. An instance that caused significant concern was when a study related to the marketing of psychotropic medications for young individuals, as mentioned in the MAHA report, named an author who denounced any association with the said study. Even the mentioned institution dissociated itself from the study. This sparks a wave of unease across all those engaged in the field of scientific research.
Maintaining the gravity of the situation, Georges C. Benjamin, the director of the American Public Health Association, voiced out strongly against the MAHA report, categorizing it as fundamentally flawed. He clarified that due to the extreme inaccuracies present in the report, it shouldn’t be referenced in any serious discussions or for any form of policy making. The significant concern was around the credibility of the presented facts within the document.
The White House’s response to the controversy wasn’t as intensive as many anticipated. Karoline Leavitt, the Press Secretary, misconstrued the issue to be associated with ‘formatting’. This response did not go unchecked. Headlines were made when various experts contested this statement, stating in unified consensus that the credibility of the document was severely compromised.
Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, emphasized this point by highlighting that authentic scientific publishing is about verification. The process typically encompasses several layers of scrutiny. With the absence of these checks and balances, the errors within the MAHA report managed to bypass detection. Furthermore, the report’s reliance on content generated via AI raises concerns considering AI’s potential to produce ‘hallucinations.’ Hallucinations refer to a phenomenon where AI generates seemingly plausible but factually incorrect information.
Steven Piantadosi, a professor specializing in psychology and neuroscience, raised alarms around the key limitation of AI – its lack of inherent truthfulness. He remarked that as AI fundamentally relies on statistical associations and dependencies, it lacks the ability to comprehend or convey a grounded truth or a systemic logical argument. In effect, AI lacks the ability to comprehend and effectively weigh various forms of evidence against each other.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is known to have previously propagated unsubstantiated claims relating vaccines to autism, assumed the role of U.S. Health Secretary in February. Since then, he has implemented sweeping layoffs within the Department of Health and Human Services. Furthermore, he has revealed plans to initiate placebo trials for all future vaccines, reflecting the administration’s approach to minimal regulation and increased individual choice in health policy.
The content of the MAHA report is demonstrative of this attitude. It attributes the ongoing health crisis in the United States to factors such as diet, environmental toxins, stress, and overmedicalisation. However, it severely de-emphasizes or completely overlooks systemic factors, such as the absence of universal healthcare, the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the role of gun violence in the nation’s health crisis.
One part of the report lauds the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) for its success in positively impacting children’s health. This praise starkly contrasts with the Trump administration’s proposed bill that suggests drastic cutbacks to social programs. These cuts would drastically lower enrollment numbers and benefits for WIC recipients.
The Democratic National Committee publicly accused Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services of developing policy priorities based on non-existent references and multiple citation errors ranging from broken links to misinterpreted conclusions. The stark discrepancy between the content of the report and the overall agenda of the current administration is also evident in RFK Jr.’s recent proposition of preventing government-funded researchers from publishing in mainstream medical journals.
The MAHA report’s reliance on non-existent research, along with the omission of key health crises, has resulted in a skewing of the factors contributing to chronic illness in children and promotes a politically associated narrative unsupported by scientific evidence. Experts have voiced concerns around the wider implications of the usage of AI in policy development and the degradation of trust in governmental organizations responsible for protecting public health.
As Piantadosi accentuates, the role of AI is supposed to be evidence-based, yet it was applied to develop a policy framework affecting the lives of millions of Americans. With its dependence on generated citations, misled assertions, and selective frameworks, the MAHA report indicates a worrying new phase in the politicization of health research and the risks associated with letting AI take over scientific rigor.
The post Dubious Citations in ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Under Fire appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
