A federal prosecutor in Washington has reached out to The New England Journal of Medicine (N.E.J.M.), renowned as one of the world’s top medical journals, with inquiries implying, albeit without proof, that it may be biased and swayed by outside influences.
Dr. Eric Rubin, the N.E.J.M.’s editor-in-chief, described the communication as “vaguely threatening” during a conversation with The New York Times.
At least three additional journals have received similar correspondence from Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist currently serving as the interim U.S. attorney in Washington. Mr. Martin has faced scrutiny for allegedly using his position to go after the administration’s critics.
His letters accused the journals of taking sides in scientific discussions and posed a series of accusatory queries regarding bias and article selection.
Do they welcome submissions from scientists with “contrasting opinions”? What steps do they take if authors who have been published “might have deceived their readers”? Are they open about influences from “sponsors, funders, advertisers, and others”?
The letter sent to N.E.J.M. was first reported by STAT, a health-focused news platform.
Mr. Martin additionally inquired about the involvement of the National Institutes of Health, which provides funding for some of the research published in these journals, and its influence on “the creation of submitted papers.”
Amanda Shanor, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, emphasized that the information released in reputable medical journals like N.E.J.M. is generally protected by the Constitution.
In most instances, journals hold the same strong rights as newspapers, which are among the strongest protections offered by the Constitution, she noted.
“There is no justification for anything less than the most robust First Amendment protections to apply to medical journals,” she stated. “It seems to be intended to instill a kind of fear that could suppress individuals’ expression — posing a constitutional issue.”
It’s unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria Mr. Martin followed for targeting specific publications. The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington has not commented on the matter.
“Our role is to assess scientific work impartially,” Dr. Rubin stated. “That’s our process, and I believe we execute it effectively. The queries imply a bias in our operations — that’s where the vaguely threatening nature arises.”
Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of the journal Science, remarked that he believes the letters aim to “intimidate journals to overly accommodate” papers that align with the administration’s views — on topics like climate change and vaccines, even if the quality of the studies is subpar.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current health secretary, specifically targeted N.E.J.M. during an interview on the “Dr. Hyman Show” podcast last year, alleging that it engaged in “misleading the public” and “withdrawing genuine science.”
Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to discuss any potential connections between Mr. Kennedy and the letters.
In the discussion, Mr. Kennedy expressed intentions to take legal action against medical journals under federal anti-corruption statutes.
“I’m going to sue you under racketeering laws, utilizing general tort laws,” he stated. “I’m going to find a method to pursue legal action unless you devise a strategy immediately to demonstrate how you will start publishing authentic science.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the recently appointed director of N.I.H., has been vocally critical of the management of scientific journals. He recently co-founded a new journal as an alternative to conventional scientific publishing and has published opposing views on Covid.
Other notable journals reported they had not received the letter. On Friday, The Lancet, a British journal, published a sharp editorial expressing solidarity, labeling the letters as “a clear tactic to instill fear in journals and infringe upon their right to independent editorial judgement.”
“Science and medicine in the U.S.A. are being violently torn apart while the world observes,” the editorial stated.
One of Mr. Martin’s letters was directed to the journal Chest, which publishes specialized studies on topics such as lung cancer and pneumonia. The New York Times reported last week that at least two other publishers received nearly identical letters.
They opted not to speak publicly due to concerns about potential backlash from the Trump administration.
Dr. Rubin admitted to worrying about political repercussions. Many scientific journals indirectly depend on public funding since universities often use federal grants to cover subscriptions.
“Are we worried? Absolutely,” he remarked. “But we are committed to doing what’s right.”
Mr. Martin gave the journals until May 2 to answer his inquiries. N.E.J.M. has already countered Mr. Martin with a response that refutes his portrayal of the journal.
“We employ rigorous peer review and editorial processes to guarantee the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish,” the statement said. “We uphold the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free speech.”
This isn’t the first time N.E.J.M. has faced the Trump administration.
In 2020, the journal published an editorial criticizing the president’s handling of the pandemic — marking the first instance in its 208-year history where it took a political stance.
Dr. Rubin expressed skepticism about any connection between Mr. Martin’s letter and the editorial. He noted that the journal Chest hadn’t commented on Trump’s first term yet still received a letter.
