Ed Martin, now American interim lawyer in the Columbia district, talks during an audience on Capitol Hill on June 13, 2023.
Michael A. McCoy / Getty Images
hide
tilting legend
Michael A. McCoy / Getty Images
The letters have started to arrive in medical journals across the country in recent weeks.
“It was brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications … conceded that they are supporters in various scientific debates,” wrote Edward R. Martin Jr.American acting lawyer in the Columbia district, in a letter to the newspaper CHEST.
Martin then asks a series of questions – about disinformation, competing points of view and the influence of donors such as advertisers and national institutes of Health.
“The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities,” adds the letter. Martin requests an answer by May 2.
“We were surprised,” said Dr. Eric Rubinthe editor -in -chief of The New England Journal of MedicineOne of the four editors at least to obtain a letter from Martin and probably the most important. “Other newspapers had already received letters, so it was not a shock, but, again, a surprise.”
In addition to the Rubin newspaper, Martin sent letters to Jamawhich is published by the American Medical Association; Obstetrics and gynecologyA Journal of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; And CHESTPosted by the American College of Chest Physicians. There may be others.
“We were concerned because there were questions that suggested that we can be biased in the research we report,” said Rubin. “We are not. We have a very rigorous examination process. We use external experts. We also have internal publishers who are also experts in their fields.
Rubin says that the letter mentioned that the newspaper had a tax exemption status.
“It seems that there is a threatening tone to the letter and he tries to intimidate us,” said Rubin.
Protection of the first amendment may not be dissuaded
The letters do not cite any specific example of supposed bias or do not say which action Martin could take.
But others say that letters raise serious concerns.
“It’s quite unprecedented,” said Jt morrisLawyer of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a defense group of freedom of expression. He says the first amendment protects medical journals.
“Who knows? We have seen this administration take all kinds of action which has no legal basis and that has not stopped them,” explains Morris. “And so there is always a fear that the federal government and its officials like Ed Martin will leave and abuse their authority and try to use the legal process and abuse the judicial system in scientific journals and health professionals and anyone with whom they do not agree.”
Science depends on the publication in journals
Medical journals play a crucial role in the verification and dissemination of scientific information, in particular which public health treatments and measures work, which are not and which could be dangerous or safe.
“This is an indication of the measure to which this administration will try to interfere with scientific research and the scientific community,” explains Carl BergstromBiology professor at Washington University. “They will do just anything and alter science in all ways they think they are useful.”
The letters come as the Trump administration has tried to influence what scientists can say in various ways. The administration has smothered the communication of federal scientists and reduced studies on disinformation, on how to talk about LGBTQ +health problems.
This forces scientists to rub the language in their subsidies and their research deemed “awake”, including gender terminology.
“It is a set of policies attacking the scientific community, whether scientists in universities or in institutions such as NIH, FDA, CDC or magazines and their publishers,” explains Richard Horton, editor -in -chief of chief LancetA first British medical newspaper. Lancet did not receive one of the letters, said Horton, but published a editorial condemn requests.
“This is a research ecosystem, and it is the functioning of this research ecosystem that provided these phenomenal breakthroughs during so many decades. And that is what is attacked,” says Horton.
The Trump administration criticized the journals
Secretary of Health and Social Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, both criticized medical journals. Kennedy has even threaten legal action Against journals. Just before taking over at the NIH, Bhattacharya helped start a new newspaper aimed at providing an alternative to traditional publications.
Neither Martin nor the Ministry of Justice responded to requests for NPR comments.
But other people also say that dominant medical journals are biased.
“I share concerns with the American lawyer that American scientific groups and journals have become far too militant and far too left in recent years,” said Glock judgeWho directs research at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative reflection group.
But even Glock and others who share this point of view keep wanting the Ministry of Justice to investigate medical journals.
“In general, the American lawyer should not be concerned with himself with the position of these private newspapers,” said Glock. “They should not ask for information, and they should not try to encourage them to publish different types of editorials or modify their editorial practices according to what an American lawyer is appropriate.”
But there is a certain support on how Martin puts pressure on magazines.
“They are absolutely biased, and we have seen that they were captured by what I called a blob, which is a form of guards who are satisfied with the big pharmacy and the public health and the university world and they all know each other,” said all ” Roger Severino From the Heritage Foundation, another conservative reflection group. “So, yes, there have been a lot of bias, and they should find the truth above all. But instead, they just become another particular interest.”