Federal prosecutors in Washington contacted the New England Journal of Medicine to ask questions suggested without evidence that they were considered the world's most prestigious medical journal, biased towards certain views and influenced by external pressure.
NEJM editor Dr. Eric Rubin described the letter as “blushy threatening” in an interview with the New York Times.
At least three journals have received similar letters from Republican activist Edward Martin Jr., who serves as interim US lawyer in Washington. Martin has been criticized for using his office to target administration opponents.
His letter accused the publication of being “partisans in various scientific debates,” and asked a series of accusative questions about bias and selection of research articles.
Will they accept submissions from scientists of “competing perspectives”? What would the authors of the authors they published would do, saying they “may have misled their readers”? They said, “Are you transparent about the impact from supporters, funders, advertisers, etc.?
News of the letter to NEJM was previously reported by Health News outlet Stat.
Martin also asked about the role of the National Institutes of Health. This funds some of the research published by the journal and the agency's role “in the development of submitted articles.”
Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said information published in reputable medical journals like NEJM is widely protected by the Constitution.
In most cases, journals have the same robust rights that apply to newspapers. She added that the constitution offers the strongest.
“There is no basis for this to say that it applies to medical journals other than the strictest First Amendment protections,” she said. “It appears to be aimed at creating a kind of fear and cold that affects people's expression. That's a constitutional concern.”
It is unknown how many journals received these letters or criteria that Martin used to determine which publications to target. The U.S. Lawyer's Office in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
“Our job is to evaluate science and evaluate it in an unbiased way,” Dr. Rubin said. The question seems to suggest that there are some biases in what we are doing – it's vague There's a threatening part coming in. ”
Jeremy Berg, former editor of Journal Science's Prime Minister, said he thought the letter was designed to “threate backwards and bend journals” in order to publish papers that match the administration's beliefs on climate change and vaccines, even when research is of poor quality.
National Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. singled out NEJM in an interview with the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year.
Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon declined to comment on whether Kennedy was involved in the letter.
In an interview, Kennedy said he would attempt to prosecute medical journals under the Federal Anti-Corruption Act.
“I intend to file a lawsuit against you under the general tort law and under the Assault Act,” he said. “Unless you've come up with a plan to show you how to start publishing a real science, I'm going to find a way to sue you.”
New Director of NIH, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, has been vehemently criticizing the leadership of science journals. Recently he co-founded a new journal as an alternative to traditional science publishing. We publish paradoxical views on Covid.
Other well-known magazines said they had not received the letter. On Friday, the UK-based Lancet released a poignant editorial of solidarity, calling it “an obvious ployment to siege the magazine and clash with the rights of independent editorial supervision.”
“American science and medicine are fiercely separated while the world is watching,” the editor said.
One of Martin's letters was sent to Journal Chest, a modest publication that publishes advanced technical research on topics such as lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week that at least two other publishers received letters with roughly the same words.
They refused to speak publicly, fearing retaliation from the Trump administration.
Dr. Rubin said he was also worried about political backlash. Science journals rely on public funding in several indirect ways. For example, universities often use federal grants to pay for subscriptions.
“Are we worried? Of course,” he said. “But we want to do the right thing.”
Martin handed over the magazine until May 2nd to answer questions. Nejm has already responded to Martin in a statement opposed to the characterization of his journal.
“We use rigorous peer review and editing processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of published research,” the statement read. “We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their initial right to revise their free expression.”
This is not NEJM's first brush with the Trump administration.
In 2020, the Journal released an editor who denounced the president's response to the pandemic. This was the first time the Journal had supported or condemned a political candidate in its 208-year history.
Dr. Rubin said he suspected that Martin's letter was related to the editorial. The Journal Chest did not write about Trump's first term, but he pointed out.
