--- title: The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach description: "An adversarial collaboration on vaccines could serve as a model," write Drs. Christopher M. Worsham and Anupam B. Jena. canonical: https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2025-03-27T20:20:18.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-19T07:51:09.348Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach og:description: "An adversarial collaboration on vaccines could serve as a model," write Drs. Christopher M. Worsham and Anupam B. Jena. og:url: https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltedb5c870d31b9876/6998c53c83ec37c8cac7a734/vaccine.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2121 og:image:height: 1193 og:image:alt: vaccine og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach twitter:description: "An adversarial collaboration on vaccines could serve as a model," write Drs. Christopher M. Worsham and Anupam B. Jena. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltedb5c870d31b9876/6998c53c83ec37c8cac7a734/vaccine.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: September 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e402787d-594d-4d94-a9fa-b5171b956488&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Weekdays | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Weekly | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Twice a week | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | Source: TIME, August 2026. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e402787d-594d-4d94-a9fa-b5171b956488&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=e402787d-594d-4d94-a9fa-b5171b956488&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (health, weekdays), Worth Your Time (culture, weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, twice weekly), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=e402787d-594d-4d94-a9fa-b5171b956488&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1) ## Video: The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach [Watch (HLS stream): The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/6g69q5Sj.m3u8) (3:01)  _Published 2025-03-27. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly has plans to perform a large study on a “possible connection” between vaccines and autism—a topic of interest to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite plenty of research showing no such connection exists._ by [Christopher M. Worsham](https://time.com/author/7198766/) and [Anupam Jena](https://time.com/author/anupam-b-jena/) Mar 27, 2025 8:20 PM UTC The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly has plans to perform a large study on a “possible connection” between vaccines and autism—a topic of interest to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite plenty of research showing no such connection exists. by [Christopher M. Worsham](https://time.com/author/7198766/) and [Anupam Jena](https://time.com/author/anupam-b-jena/) Mar 27, 2025 8:20 PM UTC The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [reportedly has plans](https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-cdc-plans-study-into-vaccines-autism-sources-say-2025-03-07/) to perform a large study on a “possible connection” between vaccines and autism—a topic of interest to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite plenty of research showing no such connection exists. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Kennedy was asked by Republican senator and physician Bill Cassidy about his views on vaccines and autism. “Will you reassure mothers unequivocally and without qualification that the measles and the hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism?” Cassidy asked. “If the data is there, I will absolutely do that,” Kennedy replied. Of course, the data is there—in abundance. There is [ample](https://www.cochrane.org/news/cochrane-review-confirms-effectiveness-mmr-vaccines)[ scientific](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24814559/)[ evidence](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101) that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet Kennedy and those who discount this research claim that it is either flawed or insufficient to disprove a possible link. That raises the question: could more “data” change their minds? If a lack of “good data” is truly driving people to avoid vaccines, it would be important to know, exactly, what new data could possibly change minds. Considering that most parents are probably not reading and appraising scientific studies themselves (either because they’re busy or because scientific studies are not really written for general audiences), this question is best asked to the high-profile vaccine skeptics in which some parents have placed their trust and whose opinions are taken seriously by millions of Americans. Now, if high-profile vaccine skeptics were to lead their own study, it may be hard for the mainstream scientific community or most Americans to trust its results. Similarly, if experienced researchers who’ve previously advocated for vaccines were to conduct a new study, vaccine skeptics would likely dismiss the results as flawed, insufficient, or biased—as they have already for many existing studies. Bias, or the perception of it, can paralyze the pursuit of scientific truth. If the CDC embarks on its study of vaccines and autism, is there any way that its findings could be considered reliable by all? **Read More**: [_I’m the Former CEO of Gavi. Here’s What’s at Risk if Trump Cuts Vaccine Aid_](https://time.com/7272078/trump-gavi-vaccine-aid-cuts/) One strategy is an adversarial collaboration, a process pioneered by the [late](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/opinion/nobel-daniel-kahneman-collaboration.html) Nobel laureate in economics Daniel Kahneman. He [popularized adversarial collaboration](https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahneman) as an alternative to “angry science.” Simply put, adversarial collaboration is where those with opposing viewpoints perform research togetherto arrive at conclusions in a mutually agreeable way. According to the [University of Pennsylvania’s Adversarial Collaboration Project](https://web.sas.upenn.edu/adcollabproject/), the process is helpful when those with clashing views have “become entrenched” and research has “become politicized.” Both sides must make three key commitments: 1. They will both make good faith efforts to understand and fairly characterize the opposing viewpoint 2. Before performing any research, they will work together to design a study and framework for interpretation—in advance—that both sides agree would have the potential to change their minds 3. Both sides will stick to their pre-specified plan and publish the results together, regardless of the study’s outcomes. Advocates of adversarial collaborations [point](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Famp0001391) to benefits like avoiding errors and oversights, putting a check on biases researchers may have, and advancing science faster than if opposing groups were to continue work in their respective silos. Specifying a plan up front and sticking to it—a method routinely used in the conduct of clinical trials—helps ensure analyses aren’t changed and results aren’t interpreted in a biased manner if one side isn’t happy with the study’s findings. This has worked in the past. There are a number of examples of the method’s success when research has produced conflicting results, particularly in the field of behavioral science—such as research into[ how short term memory works](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691620906415), [ gender bias in academia](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15291006231163179), and even the [link between happiness and income](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120), when researchers who had separately published conflicting results teamed up to better hone the relationship between these two factors. While performing a well-executed adversarial collaboration at the national level is easier said than done, if the National Institutes of Health and CDC want to perform additional research on vaccines and autism, there’s no reason the strategy couldn’t be applied—the stakes are certainly high enough. But both parties must take the process seriously and stick to their commitments. That means agreeing up front on what kinds of data will be collected, the specific methods that will be used to analyze the data, and what processes will be followed if disagreements in data interpretation occur. The end result—a study published by both vaccine skeptics and proponents—might just make for more productive public discourse surrounding vaccine policy. If, however, advocates on either side of this issue aren’t willing to engage in an adversarial collaboration, it should call the seriousness of their concerns into question. If a vaccine skeptic says the current evidence is insufficient to prove vaccines are safe, shouldn’t they be able to tell us what evidence would be scientifically sufficient? And if vaccine proponents want to increase vaccination rates, shouldn’t they be willing to take steps to address mistrust in the scientific community—a [known driver](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01728-z) of vaccine hesitancy—even if they view the research as redundant? If successful and productive, an adversarial collaboration on vaccines could serve as a model for addressing other politicized issues in public health and science-informed policy more broadly. For researchers, engaging with those who have [lost trust](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/) in the scientific community—in good faith and without condescension—is one way to start rebuilding that trust. At the same time, if critics of the mainstream scientific community won’t engage to address their own concerns, it suggests that, perhaps, their dissatisfaction is with what the science has been telling us—and not the quality or quantity of the research. ## Transcript [00:00] The new Secretary of Health and Human Services. [00:02] RFK Jr is a well-known vaccine skeptic and he's called for more data on their safety. [00:08] Chris, I think that scientists like you and [00:10] me probably agree that there's already a lot of [00:12] evidence that there is no link between vaccines and conditions like autism. [00:17] But lots of people in the public still aren't fully convinced. [00:22] Now, it's been reported that the CDC may launch a new study [00:26] on a possible connection between vaccines and autism. [00:30] Yeah, and it does kind of make you wonder if having more data on this subject [00:35] is really going to do anything to change anybody's mind on either side of this issue. [00:41] Yeah, it's a good question, [00:42] because if high profile vaccine skeptics led their own study, [00:47] it may be hard for the mainstream scientific community or [00:51] lots of Americans to get behind it and to trust its results. [00:55] But on the flip side, [00:56] if experienced researchers who previously advocated for vaccines. [01:01] If they were to conduct their own study, [01:03] vaccine skeptics might be likely to continue to dismiss those results. [01:08] There is actually, though, [01:09] kind of a clever way to do research on controversial topics like this one. [01:14] It's something called an adversarial collaboration. [01:18] And the idea here is that you have two groups or scientists with opposing viewpoints get [01:24] together and perform the research together to [01:27] arrive at conclusions in a mutually agreeable way. [01:30] But in order to do this, [01:32] both sides need to commit to three things. [01:35] Number one, they will both make good faith efforts to really [01:39] understand and fairly characterize the opposing viewpoint. [01:44] And number two, I think they both have to work together in advance to [01:49] design a study that both sides agree would have the potential to change their minds. [01:55] Yeah. And then number three is they have to stick to that plan. [02:00] So execute the plan and then publish the results together, [02:04] regardless of what they find. [02:06] If people on either side of the issue aren't [02:09] willing to engage in an adversarial collaboration, [02:12] it should call the seriousness of their concerns into question. [02:17] Yeah, and an adversarial collaboration on vaccines could be really powerful, [02:21] but there's no reason to stop there, right? [02:24] So if something like this was successful and productive, [02:27] we could use an adversarial collaboration on [02:30] vaccines as a model or a template for addressing [02:33] some of the other politicized or controversial issues [02:36] in public health or in science more broadly. [02:39] You know, for researchers engaging with those who have lost trust in [02:43] the scientific community and doing so in good faith and without condescension, [02:49] seems like a really good way to actually start rebuilding that trust. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/"},"headline":"The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach","datePublished":"2025-03-27T20:20:18.000Z","dateModified":"2026-10-19T07:51:09.348Z","description":"\"An adversarial collaboration on vaccines could serve as a model,\" write Drs. Christopher M. Worsham and Anupam B. Jena.","url":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/","keywords":["health","freelance","healthscienceclimate"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltedb5c870d31b9876/6998c53c83ec37c8cac7a734/vaccine.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Christopher M. Worsham","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/7198766/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Anupam Jena","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/anupam-b-jena/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltedb5c870d31b9876/6998c53c83ec37c8cac7a734/vaccine.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"vaccine","caption":"vaccine","creditText":"Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/health/","name":"health"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/","name":"The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"The New CDC Study on Vaccines and Autism Should Take a Radical Approach","description":"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly has plans to perform a large study on a “possible connection” between vaccines and autism—a topic of interest to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite plenty of research showing no such connection exists.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/6g69q5Sj/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2025-03-27T19:38:30.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/6g69q5Sj.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/","duration":"PT3M1S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/7272138/cdc-study-vaccines-autism-adversarial-collaboration-essay/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```