It would be a mistake to rush to ban social networks for under 16s

There is a saying in the halls of British political power that scientific advisers should be “on tap, not on top”. This pithy aphorism, often attributed to Winston Churchill, emphasizes that in a democracy, science should guide—not dictate—policymakers’ decision-making.

This has never been truer than at the height of the covid-19 pandemic. Despite politicians in the UK claiming to “follow the science”, there were many decisions – from paying people to isolate themselves to closing schools – that could not be made on scientific advice alone. What’s more, some questions were not immediately answered by scientists. Policymakers were forced to scramble.

By contrast, the Trump administration is now turning off the scientific spigots as government health authorities roll back long-established guidelines on everything from vaccines to cell phone radiation, all in the name of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

“
By mid-2027, we should have much stronger evidence of social media harm
“

But what about a situation where science is still developing and we are not facing a global emergency? So the question centers on how long policymakers should wait before the scientific results are clear.

One of the biggest debates in many countries right now is whether to ban the use of social media by under-16s, as Australia did at the end of last year. The proposed bans are extremely popular with the public, but the best available scientific evidence shows that at a population level, the impact of social media on teenage mental health is minimal. Should politicians ignore the evidence and go with the majority?

It would be in line with Churchill’s principle. But as we report here, by mid-2027 we should have much stronger evidence of the harms of social media, both from a randomized trial in the UK and from the natural experiment that enables the Australian ban. So the only sensible course of action is to wait for the scientists to come up with the goods before getting into politics. To coin a new phrase, science should be on tap, not on top—and given plenty of time.