TLDR: I argue that mass deletion of scientific data due to the recent policy changes and executive orders in the US on government sites is a key concern in health, biosecurity and more.  Action can be cheap, accessible and if done in time, can prevent critical information being lost until systems are restored.

Mass deletions are impactful (leaving medics without data, patients without treatment, scientists without evidence), neglected (not reported or centrally coordinated) and have a tractable solution (creating a temporary coordination of information gaps, and long term systems level change in the open storage of scientific public datasets).


 

Current policies are leading to mass deletion or removal of lots of academic papers. Many efforts are being done to try to archive it but it is slow, disparate, disjointed, and too unweildy to condence public science datasets to lone archives.

Just a few reports:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-dei-hiv-cdc-website-removed-lgbtq-rcna190068

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/multiple-health-agency-websites-hiv-contraception-comply-executive/story?id=118335484

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-deletes-hiv-lgbtq-care-222430401.html

 

To give a sense of scope, I have attatched just a small excerpt of pages deleted in the last 2 days from a single person crawl of CDC:


 

-PAPERS AND TOPICS DELETED or UNAVAILABLE: (as of 2/2/25)

 

Broad topics:


 

These pages are unavailable, removed or deleted and in terms of neglectedness:

Some media outlets are discussing it but not in a concrete harm reduction or infrastructure/systems change sense

It is not being very publicly reported in mainstream global outlets

The real world effects are being ignored such as medical professionals being unable to prescribe medications, check drug interactions, stick to HIV and TB treatment regimens, researchers complete papers, track disease outbreaks, or give vaccines (as VIS vaccine information sheets must be given before each dose, and the sheets are all removed).


For now, I am working on trying to create a website or system to report deletions, archive alt sources and communicate outbreak cases decentralised.

But we must start with a humble google folder:

Please try to add any sources that you find missing, or any papers or datasets you had downloaded or available that may be critical in rebuilding functional guidelines for practicing evidence based treatment, prevention and immunisation programs.

 


 

Master

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Si4-mazN4YUJ1f0bczhNX7ic2dG1Hvps/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103838672950603574456&rtpof=true&sd=true

Folder

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mRNJ8MMKrG51XIrxD9ApIha6C1UHjNLh?usp=sharing

Report a deletion/removal/missing source: e.g. CDC missing HIV guidance 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vp4ZnpwWh_ZVY11eyfkV8BHKlV44PRlO7yN3AEWBtbw/edit?usp=sharing

Report an alt source/add a source: e.g. here’s the pdf on Tetanus vaccines

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VSLD2aKgTV70kq5cvGlopeRxVxGBQgEY-D_uDLzseUA/edit?usp=sharing

Report a paper retraction policy/lab and research freeze/funding freeze: e.g. I had to retract my paper as it mentioned gender differences in cardiovascular risk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12LcwPYWe9X1R0-7oQRzwIybZN6BMzSyx1usBpjvq234/edit?usp=sharing

Report news and info about disease, global and public health, recalls, outbreaks, medicine and more: e.g. recall of this product, or H5 strain found in this state

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JAGgAWNEPt4zHdSZlo9KiTNsmsc00VlFs4CeWovV2BU/edit?usp=sharing

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Late to the party as many of these seem to have been restored (albeit very reluctantly given the grumpy note). But for some still offline, there's the Wayback Machine that have archived snapshots, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20250121010747/https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/causes/index.html

Keep up the good work!

Do we know they are being actually deleted, rather than just taken offline?

There are some anonymous whistle lowers but nothing verified so im going under the assumption whether deleted or removed they are both removing short term access and we need an alternative central point for critical information.

 

I sincerely hope it's just offline but honestly the order was to remove it, but nothing in terms of specifics, and deleting it seems like a logical next step unfortunately in the way it's currently going.

 

I am crossing my fingers the orders are reversed and they are brought back, but without dynamic updates and a central resource point, global health and public data is in jeopardy in my opinion. 

 

They've also closed freedom of information request forms to ask for the data or papers. So can't access it even in case by case requests.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Around 1 month ago, I wrote a similar Forum post on the Easterlin Paradox. I decided to take it down because: 1) after useful comments, the method looked a little half-baked; 2) I got in touch with two academics – Profs. Caspar Kaiser and Andrew Oswald – and we are now working on a paper together using a related method.  That blog post actually came to the opposite conclusion, but, as mentioned, I don't think the method was fully thought through.  I'm a little more confident about this work. It essentially summarises my Undergraduate dissertation. You can read a full version here. I'm hoping to publish this somewhere, over the Summer. So all feedback is welcome.  TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test this hypothesis using a large (panel) dataset by asking a simple question: has the emotional impact of life events — e.g., unemployment, new relationships — weakened over time? If happiness scales have stretched, life events should “move the needle” less now than in the past. * That’s exactly what I find: on average, the effect of the average life event on reported happiness has fallen by around 40%. * This result is surprisingly robust to various model specifications. It suggests rescaling is a real phenomenon, and that (under 2 strong assumptions), underlying happiness may be 60% higher than reported happiness. * There are some interesting EA-relevant implications for the merits of material abundance, and the limits to subjective wellbeing data. 1. Background: A Happiness Paradox Here is a claim that I suspect most EAs would agree with: humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives than any point in history. Yet we seem no happier for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flat over the last f
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We’ve redesigned effectivealtruism.org to improve understanding and perception of effective altruism, and make it easier to take action.  View the new site → I led the redesign and will be writing in the first person here, but many others contributed research, feedback, writing, editing, and development. I’d love to hear what you think, here is a feedback form. Redesign goals This redesign is part of CEA’s broader efforts to improve how effective altruism is understood and perceived. I focused on goals aligned with CEA’s branding and growth strategy: 1. Improve understanding of what effective altruism is Make the core ideas easier to grasp by simplifying language, addressing common misconceptions, and showcasing more real-world examples of people and projects. 2. Improve the perception of effective altruism I worked from a set of brand associations defined by the group working on the EA brand project[1]. These are words we want people to associate with effective altruism more strongly—like compassionate, competent, and action-oriented. 3. Increase impactful actions Make it easier for visitors to take meaningful next steps, like signing up for the newsletter or intro course, exploring career opportunities, or donating. We focused especially on three key audiences: * To-be direct workers: young people and professionals who might explore impactful career paths * Opinion shapers and people in power: journalists, policymakers, and senior professionals in relevant fields * Donors: from large funders to smaller individual givers and peer foundations Before and after The changes across the site are aimed at making it clearer, more skimmable, and easier to navigate. Here are some side-by-side comparisons: Landing page Some of the changes: * Replaced the economic growth graph with a short video highlighting different cause areas and effective altruism in action * Updated tagline to "Find the best ways to help others" based on testing by Rethink
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary I’m excited to announce a “Digital Sentience Consortium” hosted by Longview Philanthropy, in collaboration with The Navigation Fund and Macroscopic Ventures, to support research and applied projects focused on the potential consciousness, sentience, moral status, and experiences of artificial intelligence systems. The opportunities include research fellowships, career transition fellowships, and a broad request for proposals for applied work on these topics.  For years, I’ve thought this area was seriously overlooked. It now has growing interest. Twenty-two out of 123 pages of  Claude 4’s model card are about its potential moral patienthood. Scientific experts increasingly say that near-term AI sentience is a real possibility; even the skeptical neuroscientist Anil Seth says, “it is unwise to dismiss the possibility altogether.” We’re hoping to bring new people and projects into the field to increase the chance that society deals with the possibility of digital sentience reasonably, and with concern for all involved. * Apply to Research Fellowship * Apply to Career Transition Fellowship * Apply to Request for Proposals Motivation & Focus For about as long as I’ve been reading about transformative AI, I’ve wondered whether society would face critical decisions involving AI sentience. Until recently, I thought there was not much to be done here besides perhaps more philosophy of mind and perhaps some ethics—and I was not sure these approaches would make much progress.  Now, I think there are live areas where people can contribute: * Technically informed research on which AI systems are sentient, like this paper applying existing theories of consciousness to a few AI architectures. * Innovative approaches to investigate sentience, potentially in a way that avoids having to take a stand on a particular theory of consciousness, like work on  AI introspection. * Political philosophy and policy research on the proper role of AI in society. * Work to ed