Whether a publication is “partisan” when it comes to “various scientific debates”

I have various subscriptions to medical mags. Not that I am a doctor or even a doctorate. I did work for medical supply/pharmaceutical companies and became familiar with various supplies. Some were even used on myself.

I found this article to be rather interesting. Hmmm, a government attorney asking questions of an editor on partisan views on particular medical/scientific topics. This was not an exercise in gaining knowledge. It is none of their business as one commenter noted.

If you go on site of MedPage Today, go into the comments section and read what medical personnel are thinking. They are not too happy with the intrusion.

Medical Journals Get Letters From DOJ, MedPage Today

A federal prosecutor sent a letter to a medical journal editor, probing whether the publication is partisan” when it comes to “various scientific debates.”

Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a list of questions to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, asking how the journal handles “misinformation” and “competing viewpoints,” among other things.

MedPage Today has learned that at least two other journals have received similar letters.

“It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates,” the letter stated.

Martin’s letter asks five questions, including how the journal assesses its “responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation,” and how it “clearly articulate[s] to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others.”

It also asks whether the journal accepts manuscripts from “competing viewpoints” as well as how it assesses the role of “funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health in the development of submitted articles.”

Finally, it asks how the journal handles allegations that authors “may have misled their readers.”

“I am also interested to know if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints,” Martin wrote. “Are there new norms being developed and offered?”

Martin requested a response by May 2.

The letter to CHEST was dated April 14 and was originally posted on X by Eric Reinhart, MD, of Chicago.

Mazzone did not return a request for comment, but the American College of Chest Physicians, which publishes CHEST, confirmed to MedPage Today that it had received the letter and said in an email its attorneys were reviewing it, and added . . . the letter’s content “was posted online without our knowledge.”

The American College of Chest Physicians also issued a statement saying that CHEST “has published numerous articles that were breakthroughs in scientific research and clinical treatment, advancing the medical profession and improving the health and well-being of patients worldwide. CHEST adheres to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and the COPE ethical guidelines for scholarly publishing, applying strict peer review standards to ensure scientific rigor.” The statement concluded, “As the publisher, the American College of Chest Physicians respects and supports the journal’s editorial independence.”

Adam Gaffney, MD, MPH, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, said the letter “should send a chill down the spine of scientists and physicians.”

“It is yet another example of the Trump administration’s effort to control academic inquiry and stifle scientific discourse — an administration, it warrants mentioning, that has embraced medical misinformation and pseudoscience to reckless effect,” Gaffney said in an email to MedPage Today. “Journal editors should join together and publicly renounce this as yet more thinly guised anti-science political blackmail.”

JT Morris, a senior supervising attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, noted that in a First Amendment case such as this, the law is clear:

“A publication’s editorial decisions are none of the government’s business, whether it’s a newspaper or a medical journal.” Adding in an email to MedPage Today . . .

“When a United States Attorney wields the power of his office to target medical journals because of their content and editorial processes, he isn’t doing his job, let alone upholding his constitutional oath.

He’s abusing his authority to try to chill protected speech.”

“Like with any bully, the best response is to stand up to them — and that includes officials who try to intimidate Americans into parroting the government’s view,” he added. “The First Amendment packs a powerful punch, and it has these medical journals’ backs.”