Trump’s New CDC Director Has Controversial History of AIDS Research

Dr. Robert Redfield has been linked with flawed research and views outside of the scientific mainstream.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Wednesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention got a new director: Robert Redfield, a prominent University of Maryland HIV researcher. Appointed to the role by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Redfield will replace former director Brenda Fitzgerald, who resigned in January over financial conflicts of interest. 

Redfield’s critics point to a track record mired in controversy. In the 1990s, he oversaw a trial of an AIDS vaccine at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; that work was later found to be inaccurate. From Kaiser Health News’ reporting on the incident: 

“Either he was egregiously sloppy with data or it was fabricated,” said former Air Force Lt. Col. Craig Hendrix, a doctor who is now director of the division of clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “It was somewhere on that spectrum, both of which were serious and raised questions about his trustworthiness.”

The Army investigated that work in 1994 and cleared Redfield of misconduct allegations. 

Earlier, in the 1980s, Redfield led an effort to screen all members of the military for HIV, and prohibit those who tested positive from serving. He also supported HIV testing of civilians during routine doctor visits and when applying for marriage licenses, a policies that most of the public health community strongly opposed.

In a March 19 letter (PDF) to President Trump, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called Redfield’s record “ethically and morally questionable” and urged the president to “reconsider Dr. Redfield as a candidate for CDC director.” 

Redfield hasn’t commented publicly on his current stance on HIV policy. As Gregg Gonsalves, an AIDS researcher with the Yale School of Public Health told the New York Times, “We don’t have to be defined by our pasts, but Dr. Redfield has to clarify where he stands now on key issues and place himself firmly in the mainstream of evidence-based public health.”

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate