In April, I decided to make it public. Leaked letter From a US attorney representing the District of Columbia Editor-in-Chief of chest, Major Respiratory and Critical Care Journals. I did so because the letter represents an authoritarian threat to science. And I knew it wasn’t an isolated, strange incident. This is a warning sign and another move in a broader campaign to control research, medicine and media.
The letter argues that “publications like the Chest Journal recognize that they are partisans in various scientific debates.” It was written by recently appointed representative US lawyer Edward R. Martin Jr. He also cites no law or legal principles to illustrate issues relating to the US government. Instead, without justification or jurisdiction Private medical journal Based in Illinois, he calls on a federal office to explain to him whether he will accept “competing perspectives” and how to edit by Martin (how to coordinate how edits by Martin -Biase) in a call to the federal office to explain in his heart that he is developing the current “new norms.”
Since I shared this publicly, at least four additional journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, have confirmed the receipt of similar letters, Today’s Med Page, Statistics News, New York Times and Science. Aside from Eric Rubin nejm, Fearing retaliation from the Trump administration, none of their targeted editors are willing to appear on the record. The letter could have been sent to more journals. chest‘s was simply the first leak.
Supporting science journalism
If you enjoy this article, consider supporting award-winning journalism. Subscribe. Purchase a subscription helps ensure a future of impactful stories about discoveries and ideas that will shape our world today.
why chest? It’s a specialized outlet Top 50 Medical Journals. This is a Keyword-driven campaigns Like people you’ve seen on CDC and NIH? Under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., terms such as “diversity,” “minority,” and “fair.” Systematically flagged. This has resulted in the elimination of federal status and programs, cancellation of research grants, and government scrubs. Website and statistics– All related to these words.
Search for chestFor example, a “transgender” archive returns a round shape (e.g., you may need to adjust your ventilator settings) that acknowledge the clinical implications of trans patients’ care. Add others Trump Target Terminology Like Race, disparity, women and hindrance, And we can see the outline of the new DOJ-led front in the administration’s target campaign Minorities for refusing to care, Legalized discrimination and Bureaucratic elimination.
Kennedy also has it I’ve disagreeed before Medical journals that do not publish research supporting his exposed, unfounded theories. False claims The vaccine causes autism, Decide your plan “Create your own journal” to publish such research. While running his own presidential campaign last year, He said He’ll do that Take legal action In response to the editor: “I intend to file a lawsuit against you under the general tort law, under the assault law. I will find a way to sue you, unless you have a plan to show you how to make the real science public now,” Kennedy says. I’m not a scientist There is no medicine training. He does not volunteer to submit his claims to the kind of critical, anonymized professional review designed to support scientific rigor in scientific journals.
Kennedy makes it frequently No evidence claim Regardless of whether it’s on podcasts, on television, and now at government press conferences. result. However, it appears to be a peer-reviewed journal chest Extensive scrutiny is required as part of the assessment process. External scientists should examine research submitted for bias, errors, and unsupported claims or conclusions, and authors should include statements about conflicts of interest that include reasons to disclose funding sources as well as bias in other people’s eyes. This is a routine procedure in the journal, showing that Martin’s letters show him surprisingly few.
We don’t know to send Martin, Kennedy or Trump’s concrete motivations chestbut it is clear that Martin’s threat to the Journal is not a one-off stunt. Trump’s actions, which cut off or threaten federal research funding at Columbia, Harvard and other universities, are likely part of a computational strategy that identifies, quarantines and threatens researchers who acknowledge realities such as inequality, social differences, and structural violence.
It is owned by American health agencies They were intertwined for a long time With national violence: Forced sterilization of black and indigenous women, Repression of civil rights protesters, Collaboration with anti-immigrant policepromotion to classify queer people as pathological and dangerous, and denial of reproductive and gender-affirming care.
These alliances are effective by a A professional culture that rewards compliance and Punish objections. In that respect, the Trump administration’s ideological control over medicine represents not a historical rupture, but rather a continuation of a sleazy heritage.
It’s important to note what Martin has to understand what’s going on now. I have never been a prosecutor before. He has no experience in criminal cases appointed to his post. To fulfill political purposes. He has since taken office I hired Michael Caputo– Trump Disgraceful First Symbiotic Spokesman He then accused government scientists of the infamous “.agitation” – As an advisor to a US law firm. The message is clear. This is not about law enforcement. It is to use state power to intimidate scientists and to curb opposition.
Against this background, if journal editors refuse to speak up and refuse to organize to protect academic freedom, they will not only fail to protect themselves and their journals in the end. They also sacrifice targeted communities.
When faced with government threats driven by personal ideological agendas in place of public interest; Silence is an accomplice, not neutral. When the Trump administration first came for the vulnerable group that was condemned, we must refuse to compromise. Immigrants they label as “criminals”– As a way to normalize national violence and expand its unconstitutional scope.
This is not the time to issue a hollow statement denounced “assumed.”The Politicization of Science” – do it Merging partisan interests with bipartisan political principles Strict scientific practice, ethical clinical care, and true public health depend on. Science is always political and we must organize politically to protect it Against authoritarian threats. That requires calling for the Trump administration’s threatening campaign on what it is: the McCarthyians’ attempt to wipe out the science of inconvenient truth and ethical foundations.
The production of knowledge, the allocation of care, and the very questions we ask and answer are all shaped by a system of power. When medical professionals pretend otherwise, we create a vacuum. And the vacuum is filled quickly The biggest ideologue and The most crazy opportunist.
It’s necessary to fight back Adjusted Actions and Solidarity The most targeted. And we need to stop pretending that defending science means it goes beyond politics. Provoked by the revelation of Martin’s letter, Rancet– The world’s leading, London-based medical journal – this public responsibility has never been rejected by an American counterpart. A clear and powerful editorial He stances that denounces the Trump administration’s attacks on science, medicine and public health and calls for Kennedy to resign. Editors and health leaders of other journals should be involved in taking such principled political positions. To do so, they have to give up on naive fantasy. If they keep their minds low enough, they can avoid being a target and simply wait for the Trump administration as they simply destroy important scientific infrastructure.
Martin’s letter declares that scientific research is no longer safe unless it coincides with national ideology. If we put it up, we will not only lose our diary. We lose the right to ask important questions and the ability to care for those who are most in need.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author and author are not necessarily. Scientific American.
