Nobel Laureates Warn RFK Jr.’s DHHS Appointment Threatens Public Health

A group of 75 Nobel laureates have issued a stark warning about the potential appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), arguing his leadership could endanger public health and undermine scientific institutions.

According to The New York Times, this is an unprecedented move, with Richard Roberts, a 1993 Nobel laureate who helped draft the letter, noting, “It’s the first time in recent memory that Nobel laureates have banded together against a Cabinet choice.”

Roberts, a physiologist, criticized Kennedy for his “political attacks on science,” calling them “very damaging.” “You have to stand up and protect it,” he added, underscoring the letter’s urgency.

The laureates’ letter specifically highlights Kennedy’s lack of qualifications in medicine and science, stating, “Placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of DHHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in the health sciences.”

Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has a long history of vaccine skepticism and controversial stances on public health policies, including his opposition to water fluoridation. These views have drawn sharp rebukes from scientists and public health leaders.

The letter further describes Kennedy as a “belligerent critic” of the very agencies he would oversee, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Kennedy’s prior pledges to fire hundreds of NIH employees and his claim that the FDA has waged a “war on public health” are central to the laureates’ concerns. The letter argues that leadership at DHHS should foster and improve these critical institutions, not threaten them. “The leader of DHHS should continue to nurture and improve — not to threaten — these important and highly respected institutions and their employees,” it reads.

Roberts emphasized the broader implications of undermining science in governance. “Science is dependent on the political structures of this country,” he said. “I don’t think we should be burying our heads in the sand just because we’re scientists.”

He concluded with a pointed remark on the stakes of the debate: “Maybe there are some who will read this and think, ‘Well, we really do want to protect the health of our citizens. They didn’t elect us so that we could kill them.’”

The unified stance from so many Nobel Prize winners underscores the gravity of their concerns, framing Kennedy’s potential leadership as a threat not only to public health but also to America’s global standing in scientific progress.