This week, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia raised eyebrows with a letter directed at the editor of CHEST Journal, a publication for chest doctors. The letter questioned the journal’s commitment to preventing the spread of misinformation, its inclusion of diverse viewpoints, and potential influences from funders or advertisers. This move sparked concerns among First Amendment advocates and scientists, who interpreted it as a potential threat to academic and scientific freedom.
The letter, which originated from Acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, was perceived as implying partisanship on the part of scientific journals. It emphasized the journal’s “responsibilities” in its editorial conduct. These actions prompted responses from organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which criticized the letter for seemingly targeting the publication due to disagreements with its content.
Scientific journals are essential for advancing knowledge by sharing peer-reviewed research. These publications undergo rigorous review processes to ensure accuracy and validity before releasing studies to the scientific community. Recent changes in the Trump administration, including funding and personnel cuts at key scientific and medical institutions, have raised concerns about increasing governmental influence over independent research.
The office of the U.S. Attorney did not respond to inquiries about the intentions behind the letter. The correspondence was initially shared on social media by Dr. Eric Reinhart, a clinician based in Chicago, who described the letter’s tone as intimidating. The American College of Chest Physicians, which publishes the journal, confirmed the letter’s receipt and stated that legal counsel is reviewing the Department of Justice’s request.
The American College of Chest Physicians is a respected professional organization representing specialists in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. The journal maintains strict peer-review standards to uphold scientific integrity and asserts its editorial independence.
Dr. Reinhart’s decision to publicize the letter aimed to galvanize the scientific community against perceived governmental pressure. He urged editors and researchers to unite against such external influences. Meanwhile, former editors of scientific journals have expressed surprise at receiving inquiries from the Department of Justice, highlighting this as an unprecedented situation for a scientific publication.
Inquiries were made to several prominent scientific journals to determine if they had received similar letters, with responses from PLOS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and The New England Journal of Medicine, all denying receipt of such communication. However, some major journals did not respond to requests for comment.