Federal prosecutors in Washington reached out to the New England Journal of Medicine with unsubstantiated inquiries that implied the journal, considered one of the most prestigious in the world, may be biased towards certain viewpoints and influenced by external pressures.
NEJM editor Dr. Eric Rubin described the letter as “blatantly threatening” in an interview with the New York Times.
Republican activist Edward Martin Jr., serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, sent similar letters to at least three journals. Martin has faced criticism for using his position to target opponents of the administration.
The letter accused the journal of taking sides in scientific debates and posed accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles.
Will they consider submissions from scientists with differing perspectives? How will they handle authors whose work they have published that may have misled readers? Are they transparent about the influence of supporters, funders, advertisers, etc.?
This news about the letter to NEJM was previously reported by Stat and Health News Outlet.
Martin also raised questions about the role of the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research published by the journal, and its involvement in the development of submitted articles.
Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, emphasized that information published in reputable medical journals like NEJM is widely protected by the Constitution.
She explained that journals have the same rights as newspapers in most cases, with the Constitution providing the strongest legal protection.
“There is no legal basis to suggest that medical journals are not afforded the strictest First Amendment protections,” she stated. “It seems to be an attempt to instill a sense of fear and censorship that impacts people’s freedom of expression. This raises constitutional concerns.”
It is unclear how many journals received these letters or the criteria Martin used to target publications. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
“Our role is to assess and evaluate science in an impartial manner,” Dr. Rubin stated. The questions raised seem to insinuate biases in our operations – it is quite vague This introduces a threatening element. ”
Former editor of Science magazine, Jeremy Berg, believed the letter was an attempt to coerce journals into publishing papers aligning with the administration’s views on climate change and vaccines, even if the research quality is lacking.
National Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mentioned in an interview with the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year that NEJM was involved in disseminating misinformation and distorting scientific facts.
Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon declined to comment on Kennedy’s involvement in the letter.
Kennedy expressed his intention to possibly take legal action against medical journals under the Federal Anti-Corruption Act.
“I plan to file a lawsuit against you under general tort laws and the Assault Act,” he stated. “Unless you have a plan to demonstrate how you will begin publishing genuine scientific work, I will find a way to pursue legal action against you.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new head of NIH, has criticized mainstream science journals and recently co-founded a new journal that offers alternative perspectives on Covid.
The UK-based Lancet showed support by editing Editor Skas’s response, calling it “an obvious attempt to intimidate and stifle editorial independence.”
“American science and medicine are being closely watched worldwide,” the editor stated.
One of Martin’s letters was directed at the journal Chest, a publication focused on technical research in areas like lung cancer and pneumonia. It was reported by The New York Times that at least two other publishers received similar letters.
These publishers chose not to speak publicly for fear of repercussions from the Trump administration.
Dr. Rubin also expressed concerns about potential political backlash. Science journals often rely on public funding indirectly, with universities using federal grants to pay for subscriptions.
“Are we concerned? Absolutely,” he said. “But we are committed to doing what is right.”
Martin gave the magazines until May 2nd to respond to his inquiries. NEJM has already issued a statement refuting the accusations made against their journal.
“We maintain strict peer review and editing processes to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of published research,” the statement affirmed. “We uphold the editorial independence of medical journals and their inherent right to protect their freedom of expression.”
This is not NEJM’s first run-in with the Trump administration.
In 2020, the Journal dismissed an editor who criticized the president’s pandemic response. This marked the first time in its 208-year history that the Journal took a stance on a political figure.
Dr. Rubin speculated that Martin’s letter may be related to this editorial decision. While the Journal Chest did not publish on Trump’s first term, the connection was noted.
Source: www.nytimes.com
