Watchdogs Bark, Scientific Citadels Stand Firm
Justice Department reportedly subjecting medical journals to 'harassment'
In a power play that has left the academic world abuzz, several prominent medical journals have been targeted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The center of this storm includes the CHEST Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and at least three other prestigious publications.
Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, has fired off a series of letters questioning these journals’ practices and standards, particularly regarding their handling of competing viewpoints and 'misinformation'. The letters have raised the ire of scholars and First Amendment advocates, who express worry about the potential chilling effect such inquiries from law enforcement may have on academic freedom and speech.
The New England Journal of Medicine, in a response to the Justice Department, asserted its editorial independence and emphasized its commitment to upholding free expression and peer-reviewed scientific dialogue. Editors assured that the journal remains steadfast in supporting authors, readers, and patients and will continue to employ rigorous review processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of its publications.
Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) confirmed receiving a letter from Martin, and in response, highlighted the journal's focus on scientific data and patient-centered, evidence-based care. ACOG reaffirmed the journal's editorial independence from the organization.
Meanwhile, The Lancet, a venerable British medical journal, took a stronger stance, bemoaning the Justice Department's inquiries as harassment and an attack on science. The journal accused the Trump administration of attempting to impinge on its right to independent editorial oversight. Despite not receiving a letter itself, The Lancet pledged its support for fellow journals under the gun from the Trump administration.
The Nature of the Investigations
The DOJ's letters to the journals inquire into several key aspects of their editorial practices:
- Misinformation: The letters seek to understand how journals manage their responsibilities in protecting the public from misinformation.
- Editorial Bias: The inquiries aim to probe whether journals accept manuscripts representing competing viewpoints and disclose potential editorial biases arising from relationships with funders or supporters.
- Funding & Influence: The DOJ wants to know the role of funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in article development and how journals handle allegations of misleading content.
Impact on Academic Freedom and Editorial Independence
The investigations have sparked heated debates about the potential impact on academic freedom and editorial independence:
- Perceived Intimidation: Some view the letters as an attempt to intimidate journals, fearing they may discourage publications from disseminating diverse viewpoints.
- Editorial Processes: The inquiry into scientific journals comes as the Trump administration has executed funding and personnel cuts to federal science, health, and research agencies. Journals like the NEJM have reaffirmed their commitment to rigorous peer review and editorial independence.
- Challenges to Professional Integrity: Concerns linger about the potential erosion of the integrity of peer-reviewed publications if they are seen as being influenced by external authorities rather than scientific considerations.
While the DOJ's inquiries are couched as concerns for balance and transparency, they have ignited discussions about government intervention in scientific discourse and the potential erosion of academic freedom in medical publishing.
References:
- Associated Press (2021). Justice Department sends letters to medical journals asking about competitive viewpoints, misinformation. Retrieved from https://www.apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-science-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-medical-journals-b227daca0cde06a2ab9f52664a3c2f2baae65376
- Swenson, A. (2021). Interim US Attorney for District of Columbia Sent a Letter to the CHEST Journal. Retrieved from https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/discrimination/95315
- Hamblin, S. (2021). Police visits and letters to medical journals over Wuhan lab studies prompt fears of an assault on academic freedom. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2021/03/police-visits-and-letters-to-medical-journals-over-wuhan-lab-studies-prompt-fears-of-an-assault-on-academic-freedom/868296
- Morgan, D. (2021). Journal's Independence Under Pressure: The Story Behind the Justice Department's Letters. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/05/journals-independence-under-pressure-the-story-behind-the-justice-departments-letters/
- The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has asserted its inquiries into several medical journals, including the CHEST Journal, NEJM, and others, are geared towards understanding their practices regarding misinformation and editorial bias.
- The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) emphasized that it remains committed to upholding free expression, peer-reviewed scientific dialogue, and rigorous review processes, affirming its editorial independence.
- In response to the DOJ's inquiries, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) reaffirmed the journal's focus on scientific data and patient-centered, evidence-based care while maintaining its editorial independence.
- The Lancet, in a strong response, accused the Trump administration of harassment and an attack on science over the DOJ's inquiries into editorial practices.
- The DOJ's letters seek to probe how journals manage their responsibilities in protecting the public from misinformation, whether they accept competing viewpoints, and disclose potential editorial biases arising from relationships with funders or supporters.
- The investigations have led to heated debates about potential erosions of academic freedom and editorial independence, with concerns that the inquiries could discourage publications from disseminating diverse viewpoints or erode the integrity of peer-reviewed publications if they are seen as being influenced by external authorities rather than scientific considerations.
