Doctor who praised JK Rowling removed from puberty‑blocker review amid fears over anti‑trans bias

A senior health official who played a key role in pausing the NHS’s puberty‑blocker trial has been removed from further involvement after his publicly expressed gender‑critical views raised serious concerns about bias and safeguarding within the regulatory process. 

Professor Jacob George, who joined the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) as chief medical and scientific officer earlier this year, had reportedly raised objections to the trial shortly after taking up the role. Those concerns prompted the regulator to intervene, leading the Department of Health to place the study on hold. However, subsequent scrutiny revealed that Prof George had previously posted on social media praising JK Rowling and criticising people for denying what he referred to as “basic biological fact”. 

Following these revelations, the MHRA confirmed that Prof George has been recused from the process entirely - an outcome welcomed by many in the trans community, who argue that clinical decision‑making must be grounded in evidence‑based medicine rather than ideology. Advocates for trans healthcare say that allowing figures with openly hostile views on trans identities to influence access to gender‑affirming treatment risks compounding the existing barriers faced by trans young people, who are already navigating lengthy waiting lists and inconsistent policy environments. 

The decision has, however, sparked backlash from gender‑critical campaigners including Maya Forstater of Sex Matters, who claimed the recusal was unlawful and discriminatory. But LGBTQ+ rights groups point out that safeguarding the integrity of medical regulation requires ensuring that those in positions of authority do not bring personal prejudices into processes that shape the lives of some of the most vulnerable young people in the healthcare system. The pause in the trial had already heightened fears among trans youth and their families that essential care is being obstructed by political and ideological interference rather than clinical necessity.

The puberty‑blocker trial, developed by King’s College London, was intended to offer carefully monitored access to reversible treatment for young trans people—an intervention supported by decades of international clinical practice. While the MHRA had raised safety and ethical questions earlier in the process, critics argued that halting the trial altogether risked worsening the uncertainty and distress already experienced by trans adolescents denied timely care. The recusal of Prof George now clears the way for the regulatory process to continue without the influence of someone whose public statements undermined confidence in the neutrality and fairness of the oversight. 

Trans‑affirming organisations say the episode highlights the urgent need for depoliticised healthcare governance that centres the wellbeing, autonomy and rights of young trans people. They stress that decisions about puberty‑blocking treatment must be informed by established medical consensus, not amplified moral panic or the personal beliefs of officials whose views run counter to inclusive and evidence‑led practice.