A recent New York Times report has shed light on an ongoing controversy surrounding the delayed publication of a study on puberty blockers, a treatment commonly prescribed to transgender youth. Researchers involved in the study, led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy from Los Angeles Children’s Hospital, have chosen to withhold their findings for nearly a decade. The reasoning behind this delay is being called into question, sparking concerns about the role of politics in scientific research.
Dr. Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for adolescent gender treatments, and her team received significant funding—amounting to $9.7 million—back in 2015. The purpose of the study was to track 95 transgender children who had been prescribed puberty blockers to determine whether these controversial treatments were effective in alleviating depression and mental health issues associated with body dysmorphia. The team followed the children over a two-year period, hoping to present concrete evidence of the benefits of puberty blockers for transgender youth.
However, the results were not as definitive as the researchers had hoped. According to Olson-Kennedy, the children appeared to be in “really good shape” both before and after the two-year treatment period. This ambiguous finding, which seemed to show no significant mental health improvements, created a dilemma for the researchers. Olson-Kennedy explained that the results were not released due to concerns about the data being “weaponized” by critics of transgender treatments.
In her words, “I do not want our work to be weaponized. It has to be exactly on point, clear, and concise. And that takes time.” This statement revealed a growing tension between scientific findings and political agendas, leading to accusations of bias and withholding critical information.
However, the New York Times report questioned this rationale, especially in light of earlier descriptions of the study cohort. When the children first began receiving puberty blockers, a significant portion of them—about a quarter—were reported to be either suicidal or depressed. This contrasts with Olson-Kennedy’s recent comments, which suggest that the children were in good condition both before and after treatment. The disconnect between these two descriptions has raised eyebrows and fueled skepticism about the motivations behind the study’s prolonged delay.
Adding to the controversy, Olson-Kennedy also blamed budget cuts for the slow progress in publishing the results. But according to the Times, her team has already received close to $10 million in funding for the research, casting doubt on financial issues being the true cause of the delay.
Several experts have since spoken out against Olson-Kennedy’s decision to withhold the findings. Dr. Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College, expressed her concern over the delay, saying, “I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there.” Tishelman emphasized that even if the results do not show dramatic changes in mental health outcomes, the data could still have significant value. “No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding — there could be a preventative aspect to it. We just don’t know without more investigation.”
Dr. Hilary Cass, a pediatrician who has been critical of the lack of transparency in transgender healthcare, agreed with Tishelman’s sentiments. She warned that delaying the release of scientific results misleads the public and policymakers, preventing a full understanding of whether puberty blockers are actually helpful for transgender youth. “It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom,” she said.
The delay in publishing the study has reignited a broader debate about the ethics of withholding scientific data based on political concerns. For many critics, the decision to hold back the results of a taxpayer-funded study, particularly one involving the mental health of vulnerable children, is deeply troubling. With puberty blockers becoming a hot-button issue in the political arena, the lack of clear, published research on their long-term effectiveness has left many people—parents, clinicians, and policymakers—struggling to make informed decisions.
Meanwhile, proponents of transgender healthcare argue that the delay might be warranted given the highly polarized climate surrounding gender issues in the U.S. They fear that incomplete or ambiguous findings could be used by opponents to undermine access to gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth. Yet, others believe that transparency in research is crucial, especially when it comes to treatments that could have profound implications for young people’s mental and physical well-being.
As the debate continues, many await the release of Olson-Kennedy’s long-awaited findings, hoping that the study will shed more light on the real-world impacts of puberty blockers on transgender youth. Until then, the controversy over the role of politics in scientific research and the ethics of withholding data remains unresolved.
