Children’s Needs, Social Media, Public Health

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

 Dr. Neal Baer is a physician, producer, writer, and public health advocate who bridges the worlds of medicine and entertainment. A former showrunner for Law & Order: SVU and ER, he has used television to drive public conversations on critical health topics like HIV, vaccines, and genetic editing. He has taught at UCLA, Yale, and Harvard, where he co-directs a program on the intersection of medicine and entertainment. Dr. Baer authored The Promise and Peril of CRISPR and speaks widely at national scientific conferences. GLAAD, the AMA, and the Writers Guild of America have recognized his work.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Neal Baer. He is a physician, producer, writer, and public health advocate. He has worked across the fields of medicine and entertainment. A former showrunner for Law & Order: SVU and ER, he has used television to spark conversations on critical public health issues like HIV, vaccines, and genetic editing. Dr. Baer has taught at UCLA, Yale, and Harvard, where he now co-directs a program on the intersection of medicine and entertainment. He is the author and editor of The Promise and Peril of CRISPR and a frequent speaker at national scientific conferences. GLAAD, the American Medical Association, and the Writers Guild of America have recognized his contributions. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Dr. Neal Baer: Sure, my pleasure.

Jacobsen: Let us start with the basics. What do you think are a child’s most foundational needs today? Has that changed with social media and the Internet?

Baer: Big question. Foundationally, the most significant need is conversation. Taking care of children in terms of food, housing, and healthcare is critical, and many of these needs are still not being met. With recent policy changes pulling back support for food assistance, free lunches, and healthcare, these issues have become even more pressing. Beyond material needs, having honest conversations with children is essential. We have evolved over millions of years to communicate face-to-face. In the last few decades, particularly with the rise of digital communication, we have moved away from that natural form of interaction. This shift has had a profound impact on mental health and even on physical health by reducing outdoor activity and play. These are issues children face today that earlier generations, including yours and mine, did not experience in the same way.

Jacobsen: With this infusion of technology, we see physical activity and mental health changes. What areas are the most acute pain points where children are impacted the most?

Baer: Research shows that social media use negatively affects children’s self-esteem. Kids often compare themselves to others online, leading to feelings of inadequacy and depression. Cyberbullying is another major issue, along with a loss of the nurturing support that comes from real-world friendships and family interactions. Spending extensive time on video games or platforms like TikTok reduces opportunities for healthy, in-person socialization. Although attention on these issues grew after shows like 13 Reasons Why sparked widespread conversation, concerns about youth mental health existed long before. Today’s major pressure points involve helping children reconnect through in-person play, genuine face-to-face interaction with friends and family, and minimizing endless scrolling through media content.

We cannot adapt that quickly. It would take tens of thousands of years. The jump was so fast, and now it is accelerating with AI. What is next? Will we not need to do research anymore? I talk to my students about AI; we use it across different platforms. One could now conduct literature reviews without reading the literature, as was necessary in the past. Many of these shortcuts may be detrimental to our cognition simply because that is not how we evolved. We evolved to talk to each other. We are talking to each other now in a way that was not conceivable 30 or even 25 years ago. I remember when we did not have answering machines, and then we did voicemail, and so on. This incredibly rapid movement of technology causes fundamental dissonance in our physical and emotional health.

Jacobsen: There is much hype about neuroplasticity, but neuroplasticity exists throughout the lifespan. Suppose these changes happen during the earliest stages of development. Do we have any indication of what to expect longitudinally over the lifespan, especially if children are immersed in technology and are missing the face-to-face interactions that were far more common a quarter century ago?

Baer: We cannot predict that until we see kids who have lived through it into old age. Yes, we have neuroplasticity, but what does that mean? Yes, our brains can make new neural connections, but does that mean it satisfies our nervous system, given the tens of thousands of years of evolution? We evolved to look at each other in the face, be there in person, hear voices, observe the subtleties of facial expressions, and touch one another. Gestures are part of that, and we are doing that less now. What does that mean? I do not know. What does that mean for the brain? I am sure researchers are studying it. But does neuroplasticity compensate for that loss? I am not so sure. We will not know the answer until we have studied cohorts that have experienced different levels and types of social media exposure over a lifetime.

Jacobsen: What about a constructive orientation? What could parents do individually within their families to curb some of these adverse effects?

Baer: Draw the line on social media. Please do not allow it, or at least limit it significantly. Say no. Create opportunities for children to play outside, play games, read, and have in-person conversations. It is a challenge because parents are overwhelmed, working hard, and often caught up in their social media habits. It takes much intention to unplug, or at least to unplug for one day a week. I know families that do that, and they seem pretty happy—being able to talk to each other, to share meals, and to have those conversations that are otherwise difficult, if not impossible, when everyone is glued to their iPhone.

Jacobsen: What about having a scheduled time to get outside more and engage in more social activity, aside from simply restricting social media and Internet use? Also, do we have any objective metrics about the possible shrinking of children’s social circles? Has that been measured as well?

Baer: I don’t know for sure, but I imagine children’s social circles have shrunk, particularly for those who are homeschooled. Homeschooling is problematic because public schools allow all children to be seen. If a child is attending school and there are signs of physical or emotional abuse or neglect, a teacher or school staff member might notice and intervene. I was an elementary school teacher outside Denver, Colorado, for several years. If a child is homeschooled, however, it is possible that no one outside the family ever sees that child. That concern is separate from the dangers of being immersed in social media. Homeschooling can isolate a child from society altogether. More and more children are being homeschooled, and I am very concerned about that trend.

We hear much about “parental rights” but not enough about the child’s rights. Children have rights, too. For example, there is much discussion today about parents wanting to know if their child has changed their pronouns at school. But if a child does not feel safe telling their parents that they are transgender or non-binary, what does that suggest? It suggests the child has good reason to be afraid. Speaking as a pediatrician, a child who feels supported by their parents would not hesitate to share something so personal. We now see a troubling dynamic where some parents view their children almost as property rather than as individuals with their own needs and identities. That is harmful. Parents are there to provide and care for children, but children have their own lives, too.

I worry deeply about the current administration and the parental rights movement, which often overshadows what is genuinely in the best interest of the child. Children usually do know what is right for them, especially in cases where non-binary and transgender kids choose not to inform their parents. You can easily imagine why. If they are afraid, it says something profound about their home environment.

Jacobsen: What does this kind of secrecy do to the mental health of children when they feel they have to hide parts of themselves?

Baer: Exactly, exactly. And what pressure does it put on teachers now to act as monitors or tattletales in certain states, where they must inform parents about what is happening with their children? We see real conflict in places like Florida, where parents have the right to know if their children are changing their pronouns. But at the same time, they are also considering, or have already passed, child labour laws that allow kids to work at younger ages. Why is that? It is partly because of efforts to remove undocumented workers, who often perform labour that is essential but goes unacknowledged. Instead of addressing that issue, we see proposals to have children work in dangerous environments, using hazardous machinery in the Midwest or Florida. It makes no sense if your goal is truly to protect children. It raises the question: do you want to protect them, or do you want to own them?

Jacobsen: In that sense, do you encounter conversations where the implication is that parents view children as a form of property?

Baer: Parents may not consciously think that, but their actions suggest it, especially if they support changes to child labour laws or assert the right to control fully what their child can and cannot read or do. This diminishes the autonomy of the developing child and stifles their ability to come into their own. For example, if a child cannot go to a library and select a book they are interested in—say, a children’s book about a gay penguin—and the parent intervenes to block it, it suggests that the parent sees themselves as having ownership over the child’s mind. At what age does the child gain the ability to make independent choices—only at 18? This kind of indoctrination is deeply concerning. Children are often very accepting of one another and capable of making decisions that help them become active participants in their communities and the political sphere.

Jacobsen: You have held space for conversations about science and the medical industry. I also see some relation to this subject, particularly when these issues become politically charged by using the American phrase. What is a tactful way to hold space for a conversation with people who prioritize parental rights over parental responsibility, seemingly overlooking the international consensus reflected in the Convention on the Rights of the Child? How do you create room for that dialogue? Also, what kinds of misunderstandings do you commonly see beyond the general misconception that parents have a property right to their children or that parental rights outweigh parental responsibilities? I am unaware of any significant international conventions prioritizing parental rights over the child’s rights.

Baer: First, I do not believe the United States has ever ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is still an ongoing situation. It used to be the United States and Somalia that had not ratified it; I don’t know if Somalia has since signed, but we can look that up. There has always been a fear of offending certain groups by adopting international agreements like that. So, holding space for these conversations is essential.

For instance, I addressed this on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. If a parent decides not to vaccinate their child for measles, and that five-year-old child goes to a public park while contagious, even if the parent does not realize how serious it is, that child can expose others. In the episode we created, a vaccinated child was too young—under one year old—to have received the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. That younger child contracted measles and died. So, whose responsibility is that? Is it the parent’s responsibility only to their child to do what they believe is best? Or is it also their responsibility to the broader community of children?

We were among the first shows to press that ethical question: If your actions with your child cause harm to another child, are you responsible? Through storytelling, we encouraged audiences to think about what is best for their child and the impact their actions can have on other children. We saw this again during COVID-19—people refusing vaccination and becoming sick or refusing to vaccinate children who then became ill. What is our responsibility to the community, not just our immediate loved ones?

Science supports this. For example, infants cannot receive the MMR vaccine until they are at least one year old because of immune system development. Was the mother who chose not to vaccinate her child responsible for the death of the infant who contracted measles? We argued yes—because she knowingly brought her unvaccinated child into a public space, leading to another child’s exposure and death. Alternatively, should the infant’s mother have isolated the baby until vaccination was possible? These are the complex questions we raise through storytelling.

It also involves data. We have solid data on measles: it is highly contagious, and often, people do not know they are infectious until it is too late. We must acknowledge that science operates through a process—it accrues knowledge over time. It is not always immediately definitive. Many people struggle with that uncertainty. They want clear, unchanging answers about things like COVID or measles, but science evolves. Even today, we cannot definitively predict the long-term effects of long COVID. We are still learning.

We did not understand why some children died from measles until fairly recently when researchers at Harvard showed that measles could destroy a child’s memory of their antibodies. That might be one of the reasons they succumb to complications like pneumonia, as happened with at least one little girl in Texas. So we have excellent data. Whether or not people believe it—that is the big challenge now. This connects back to social media because it is very powerful in telling stories, often laced with misinformation, that are emotionally scary. We tend to remember what frightens us. We must begin in childhood by helping kids understand the scientific method—what it means to conduct experiments, what it means to accrue knowledge through experimentation, and how we build on that knowledge. I am not sure homeschooled children necessarily get that kind of education. Hopefully, they do, but it is not guaranteed.

Jacobsen: As a fact-check for the transcript, as of April 2025, 2015, Somalia signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are now about a decade into their ratification. The United States signed the CRC on February 16, 1995, indicating an intention to consider ratification. As of February 16 this year, it has been thirty years without ratification. The United States remains the only UN member state that has not ratified the treaty. The CRC is the most widely signed human rights convention in UN history. So there you go. What does that say about what we are talking about? It says America has many child marriages.

Baer: We covered that on Designated Survivor. We did an episode where Kiefer Sutherland’s character, the president, meets with a Saudi businessperson who is travelling with a very young woman. Kiefer’s character says, “Do you travel often with your father?” and the young woman replies, “He’s not my father; he’s my husband.” She is 14 years old. All the cameras click, click, click, click. The initial reaction is outrage: “Look what Saudi Arabia does to their children—child marriage!” But the story gets more interesting. Who has a higher rate of child marriage, the U.S. or Saudi Arabia? The answer is the United States. We designed that episode to challenge assumptions and reveal the uncomfortable data-backed truth.

Only a few states—maybe five, though it could be slightly more now—completely ban marriage under 18. The data show that young women, often pressured to marry because their boyfriends are much older and could be prosecuted for statutory rape, suffer worse outcomes economically and educationally. In our episode, we integrated real documentary footage of a young woman from Kentucky whose parents forced her to marry at 13 after she became pregnant by her 40-year-old boyfriend—a situation that caused enormous calamity in her life. Missouri, for example, is considered the child marriage capital because it only requires one parent’s consent to marry under 18. A mother could take her daughter to marry without the father’s knowledge, or vice versa. We have many issues in the United States that we do not necessarily talk about, write about, or show on television. We often assume the worst problems are elsewhere, but that is untrue.

Jacobsen: What are your favourite quotes from any shows you have worked on, specifically from episodes where you were the major contributor or a key contributor? What are your favourite quotes?

Baer: My favourite quote is from the measles episode, where the mother is on trial for involuntary manslaughter. Hillary Duff played the party mother, and the other mother—the so-called “good” mother—fed her child organic food and did everything right except for one thing: she did not vaccinate her child. Her child ended up giving Hillary Duff’s character’s child measles. That child died because she was too young to have been vaccinated. Stephanie March’s character, the assistant district attorney, says to the mother, “If doctors think that children should be vaccinated, and you are of a different opinion, how do you explain that?” The mother replies with my favourite line of any show I have ever done: “Science is just another opinion.”

You asked for my favourite line. That is it. And I still see that mentality today—this idea that facts are elitist. It is as if observing, counting, and measuring have become suspect. That, to me, is one of the most trenchant problems we face today. Facts are not elitist. They are the result of accumulated data and careful analysis. They are foundational to understanding reality.

Jacobsen: We have about two minutes left. What is the most heartbreaking thing you have encountered while writing, teaching, or studying, particularly in pediatrics?

Baer: Heartbreaking? I would say recently, it was my conflict with Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. They stopped treating transgender kids after Trump signed an executive order prohibiting it. I challenged them. First, I pointed out that they forced doctors to break their Hippocratic oath. Second, I asked them what message they were sending to these kids: that they were not worth protecting because the hospital was afraid of losing funding. Third, I criticized their cowardice for not standing up to Trump, especially given the overwhelming data supporting the benefits of gender-affirming care.

I can cite studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and Pediatrics that show how puberty blockers significantly promote mental health in transgender and non-binary youth. When I confronted them, they said, “It is not that we do not care—we are afraid.” And I said, “It is understandable to be afraid, but you are breaking your oaths and heading down a dangerous path.” Perhaps if institutions had stood up and said, “We will continue treating these children,” it would have helped push back against the administration’s policies.

Baer: NYU Langone and other hospitals stopped providing care during that period. Thankfully, the attorney general of California and a court case in Maryland forced hospitals like Children’s Hospital Los Angeles to resume care. However, the fact that they backed down so quickly shows how real the problem of fear is today—fear of consequences, even when harm to children is the immediate result.

Jacobsen: Any favorite quotes on resilience?

Baer: Yes. I gave a talk at Harvard Medical School’s commencement in 2018, where I said, “Curiosity is the gateway to empathy.” If we are curious about other people, that is how we develop empathy. But I would change that quote now. I would say, “Curiosity is the gateway to compassion” because I think the word empathy has become overused. People use it, but I am not sure we always understand what it means. Can we truly walk in someone else’s shoes? No, of course not. We can only walk in our shoes. But we can imagine another person’s life through storytelling, movies, poetry, music, fiction, and dance. That is why I prefer the word compassion. It opens our hearts and minds to the struggles of others. So today, I would say, “Curiosity is the gateway to compassion.”

That connects to what we discussed initially—how do we nurture curiosity? Is it through social media and endless flipping through content? Or is it through reading books, having conversations, going outside to catch tadpoles or butterflies, or watching a cocoon being made? It is one thing to see it in a video; it is entirely different to experience it firsthand. One of the most important things we can do—getting back to what you asked at the start—is to nurture genuine curiosity in children.

Jacobsen: Dr. Baer, thank you for your time and expertise. It was very nice to meet you.

Baer: Likewise. Thank you. Cheers. Take care.

Jacobsen: Bye.

Baer: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.