Why Rushing to Ban Social Media for Under-16s Is a Mistake

In the corridors of power in the UK, a vital adage states that scientific advisers need to be grounded rather than elevated. This principle, often credited to Winston Churchill, asserts that in a democracy, it is essential for science to inform policymaking, rather than dictate it.

This idea became particularly relevant during the Covid-19 pandemic, when British leaders claimed to be “following the science.” However, many critical decisions—like paying individuals to self-isolate or shutting down schools—couldn’t rely solely on scientific guidance. Numerous questions remained unanswered, placing policymakers in a challenging position.

In stark contrast, the Trump administration has been working to dismantle established guidelines from health agencies regarding various issues, from vaccination to cell phone radiation, in pursuit of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, all while curtailing scientific research.

But what should policymakers do when scientific understanding is still developing and no immediate global crisis is present? The pressing question is how long they should wait for scientific clarity.

Currently, a significant debate is brewing in various nations regarding the potential ban on social media use for those under 16, as Australia implemented late last year. While public support for such a ban is high, the prevailing scientific evidence indicates that social media’s impact on teens’ mental health is minimal at a population level. Should political leaders disregard this evidence to cater to public opinion?

To do so would align with Churchill’s maxim. Yet, as we explore further, by mid-2027, more reliable evidence regarding social media’s negative influences should emerge from both a randomized trial in the UK and data stemming from Australia’s ban. Thus, the most prudent course of action is to allow scientists the time to gather concrete evidence before implementing significant policy changes. Progress in policy must stem from proactive science—not from its supremacy—and this requires adequate time.