An NHS-funded study of cousin marriage has been criticised for ‘downplaying’ the potential damage to children.
Britain’s only in-depth review into the controversial practice, part of the Born in Bradford research programme, was also accused of being biased and pro-cousin marriage.
Dr Patrick Nash, a leading expert on the subject, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Born in Bradford has serious questions to answer about the transparency and quality of their work.
‘Much inconvenient evidence is downplayed, opposing arguments are misrepresented in bad faith, and they have a long history of publishing baseless pro-cousin marriage advocacy in academic journals of varying repute.’
His intervention comes after this newspaper highlighted an NHS training guide instructing doctors and nurses to explain the ‘benefits’ of cousin marriage, despite admitting ‘only’ 15 per cent of births have deformed babies – compared with the national average of 2 per cent.
It also follows a decision by a Bradford hospital to advertise for a ‘close relative marriage neonatal nurse/midwife’ to support parents who are cousins.
The NHS-funded Born in Bradford study tracks the children of 12,500 women who gave birth between 2007 and 2010. Of these, almost 40 per cent of babies born to parents of Pakistani origin were from first-cousin marriages.
But the academics leading it have repeatedly written and spoken favour of the practice – despite mounting evidence showing its harms.
An NHS-funded study of cousin marriage has been criticised for ‘downplaying’ the potential damage to children
MoS had previously highlighted an NHS training guide instructing doctors and nurses to explain the ‘benefits’ of cousin marriage, despite admitting ‘only’ 15 per cent of births have deformed babies. Stock image shows a newborn baby lying in a bassinet in a maternity ward
Critics have branded it the ‘most egregious example’ of the NHS seeming to support the practice of cousin marriage.
Professor John Wright, who leads the Born in Bradford study, seemed to be especially supportive of the practice. In 2012, he said: ‘People marry cousins because it means you are coming into a family where everybody loves you and there are economic benefits of keeping land or other assets in the family’.
Two years later, he wrote an article discussing the ‘social, economic and health benefits’ of cousin marriage, refusing to mention any of the proven social and economic consequences.
In 2025, in the British Medical Journal, he again claimed cousin marriage ‘seemed to have economic and social benefits’ and accused those advocating for a ban of ‘resorting to policies rooted in sociopolitical agendas’ and drawing from a ‘deep, dark well of racism and Islamophobia’. Experts have questioned many of the study’s conclusions, which dismisses the ‘overwhelming’ evidence against cousin marriage.
In one report Mr Wright claims cousin marriage is decreasing. However another showed those aged 15 to 30 are almost twice as likely to be the offspring of first cousins than those aged 70 to 80.
Last night, Dr Nash, an academic at the Pharos Foundation research institution in Oxford, added: ‘There is, even by their own numbers, no good evidence to suggest cousin marriage is declining and there is certainly no basis whatever to claim health, economic and social benefits for this appalling practice.
‘The Government and NHS need to rethink their investment in this outfit and cousin marriage needs to be banned outright.’
Born in Bradford was approached for comment.
