Proposal for a Maclean-McKeown Centre for Scientific Public Health

Version 1.01 – slightly updated, 31 August 2026

WHY

KEY FEATURES

Funding: Purely private. Any government funding will poison the well of public health science.

Location: Private universities such as Stanford and Buckingham appear to me to be possible entities to locate the centre. Or Hillsdale College.

If no university is willing to take up this task, the centre will need to start as an independent nonprofit entity somewhere in the world (ideally in the USA/ UK), and work towards ultimate absorption within a good university.

Headed by wellbeing economist: The centre should be headed by an economist like Paul Frijters or Gigi Foster who specialises in human wellbeing. The centre would hire doctors, engineers and statisticians, as appropriate.

Would write textbooks: The centre would start by rewriting almost all public health textbooks. I have advanced two textbooks to a modest degree – one, a general textbook and another on quarantine. These will need to be fact checked, edited and professionally produced. All textbooks would be placed free of cost (in perpetuity) in the public domain as PDF documents – to educate not just public health students but everyone, including journalists and politicians.

Would organise conferences: The centre would organise global conferences on key topics such as the abolition of quarantine and vaccine mandates.

Initial cost: Although an ideal endowment for such a centre should be in the range of USD$100 million, a much smaller endowment can start off the centre. A minimum funding of three years for around six senior PhD qualified staff (a couple of economists, one or two statisticians/ epidemiologisits, one or two medical doctors) plus an editor to convert raw material into formal textbooks can help kickstart the work. (The centre would need its own publishing team ultimately, since it will also act as a publisher – of OpenPublicHealth textbooks). Let’s say a donation of USD$5-7 million to kickstart the centre.

Could ultimately award degrees. Once textbooks are complete and a strong team of teachers established (each with their own textbooks), the centre could start teaching and award Masters and doctorate degrees. The goal would be to create future leaders in public health – who can then spread out and teach scientific public health in all parts of the world.

A proposed masters degree program is outlined below.

COURSE OUTLINE FOR A MASTERS DEGREE IN PUBLIC HEALTH

Personal attendence in class would be mandatory. And a Socratic method of teaching used, wherever possible.

This is a preliminary proposal.

FIRST YEAR
– Elementary high school biology
– Economics 101
– Statistics 101 and elements of Epidemiology
– Comprehensive scientific public health – mandatory (all chapters of the book I’m writing) – this book could be split into two parts for the whole year.
– Quarantine textbook – mandatory
– CBA methods

SECOND YEAR
– Comprehensive history of classical public health (this would include reading the works of Charles Maclean, Bentham, Chadwick, Southwood Smith and J.S. Mill)
– Comprehensive history of “modern” public health (the socialists, the communists, the eugenicists, the quackery of quarantine, ethics)
– Sewerage and water supply – key engineering methods and options to reduce costs
– Pasteurisation, food safety (engineering, regulations, etc.)
– Drug safety (regulations, rationale for FDA, etc.)
– Vaccines – full textbook (to be written) which includes all issues, safety, effectiveness, etc.
– Epidemiology and advanced statistical methods for public health
– Assessing research papers (critical review of bad “peer reviewed” papers)
– One 10,000 word thesis by the student on any topic related to public health

Also these two courses:

# Seminar on social justice and climate change
# Harms and good caused by public health practitioners

– these course will largely be in the form of debate and presentations by students on these topics, presenting both sides of the case (as randomly allocated by the teacher).

The idea here is that students need to understand bad arguments equally as they need to understand good arguments. Only by understanding both sides can students decide the one with more scientific evidence.

**Possibly a course on mental health, as well (Maybe it would be optional).

Evolution of the idea

2 August 2024: First thought on a centre for scientific public health.

“For public health to ultimately become a form of science rather than political ideology, it will need to focus entirely and rigorously on empiricism, willing to prove to any intelligent person its recommendations. A number of reforms are needed in the way public health is conceptualised and taught, but that is the topic for a separate declaration. At this stage we resolve to [fund/recommend] the creation of a Centre for Scientific Public Health. The centre will focus on things such as the science of quarantine and the scientific methods suitable for public health”

6 October 2024: Why an econmist must head the centre.

31 December 2024: Proposal to name it Maclean-McKeown centre

5 January 2025: The centre must be entirely funded privately

14 February 2025 Further thoughts on why McKeown’s name must be included

5 November 2025: Elaboration on the centre.

11 November 2025: Notes on what a masters degree issued by the center might look like   and this.