A federal prosecutor in Washington has contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, considered the most prestigious medical magazine in the world, with questions that suggested without evidence that he was biased against certain points of view and influenced by external presses.
Dr. Eric Rubin, editor in chief of Nejm, described the letter as “vaguely threatening” in an interview with the New York Times.
At least three other magazines have received similar letters from Edward Martin Jr., a republican activist who serves as an interim American prosecutor in Washington. Mr. Martin has been criticized for using his office to attack the opponents of the Administration.
Their letters accused the publications of being “supporters in several scientific debates” and asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles.
Do you accept presentations of scientists with “competitors views”? What do the authors whose work published “may have cheated their readers”? Are they transparent about the influence of “followers, financiers, advertisers and others”?
Stat, a news of the letter to Nejm, was previously reported by Stat, a health communication means.
Mr. Martin also asked about the role of the National Health Institutes, which finances some of the investigations published by the magazines and the role of agencies “in the development of articles presented.”
Amanda Shanor, an expert at first amendment at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the information published in good reputation medical journals such as Nejm is widely protected by the Constitution.
In most cases, magazines have the same solid rights that apply to rookies: the strongest providing the Constitution, he added.
“There is no basic to say that anything other than the strictest protections of the first amendment apply to medical magazines,” he said. “It seems that it aims to create a type of fear and cold that will have effects on people’s expression, that is a constitutional group.”
It is not clear how many magazines these letters have received or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to aim. The United States Prosecutor’s Office in Washington did not respond to a request for comments.
“Our work is to evaluate science and evaluate it impartially, “said Dr. Rubin.” That is what we do and I think we do it well. The questions seem to suggest that there is some bias in what we do, that is where vaguely The threatening part enters. “
Jeremy Berg, the former editor in chief of Science magazine, said he thought the cards were designed to “intimidate magazines to bend upside down” to publish articles that are aligned with the beliefs of the administration: about climate change and vaccines, for example.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health of the Nation, highlighted Nejm in an interview with the Podcast “Dr. Hyman Show” last year as an example of a medical magazine that has participated in “Lying to the public” and “Remove real science.”
Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, refused to comment if Mr. Kennedy had some participation in the letters.
In the interview, Mr. Kennedy said he would see medical magazines under federal anti -corruption laws.
“I’m going to litigate against you under extortion laws, under the general laws of grievance,” he said. “I will find a way to spring that you can think of a plan at this time to show how you are going to start publishing real sciences.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new NIH director, has strongly criticized the leadership of scientific journals. Recently he co -founded a new magazine as an alternative to traditional scientific publication. He has published opposite opinions about Covid.
Other prominent magazines said they had not received the letter. On Friday, the Lancet, based in Britain, published a scathing editorial in solidarity, qualifying the letters “an obvious trick to affect the fear of magazines and affect their right to independent editorial supervision.”
“Science and medicine in the United States are being violently dismembered while the world observes,” said the editorial.
One of Mr. Martin’s letters was sent to Cofre magazine, a low profile publication that publishes highly technical studies on topics such as lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week, at least two other editors had received almost identical salary letters.
They refused to speak publicly for fear of the presentation of the Trump administration.
Dr. Rubin said he was also worried about political reaction. Scientific journals depend on public funds in several indirect ways, for example, universities for the use of federal subsidies to pay subscripts.
“Are we worried? Or we are,” he said. “But we are doing the right thing.”
Mr. Martin gave the newspapers until May 2 to answer his questions. Nejm has already responded to Mr. Martin with a statement that supports its characterization of the magazine.
“We use rigorous pairs and editorial review processes to guarantee the objectivity and reliability of the investigation we publish,” reads the statement. “We support the editorial independence of medical magazines and their rights of the first amendment to free expression.”
This is not the first nejm brush with a Trump administration.
In 2020, the magazine published an editorial condemning the president’s response to the pandemic, the first time that the magazine had supported or condemned a political candidate in his 208 years of history.
Dr. Rubin said he doubted Mr. Martin’s letter was related to the publishing house. The newspaper’s chest did not write about Trump’s first mandate, he said a letter, he said.
About The Author
