The lawyer of the American district of Columbia sent a letter to the scientific editor for chest doctors this week, suggesting that the magazine was a biased and a series of questions on how the publication protects society from disinformation, regardless of whether it covers competitive points of view and whether the founders or advertisers were influenced.
“I was noticed that more and more magazines and publications such as the Chest Journal admit that they are partisans in various scientific debates,” said a letter from the legal lawyer Ed Martin, before he noticed that “you have certain obligations”.
The letter drew the attention of the groups of the first amendment and a few scientists who raised fears that it was designed to suppress academic and scientific freedom.
“It’s really amazing when you see an American lawyer from the distance of Colombia sending a letter to publication based in Illinois, asking about their editorial practices, in particular the magazine of the Medical Organization,” said JT Morris, senior supervisory lawyer for the foundation of individual rights and expressions (fire). “This shouting a state official that publishes a publication because he does not agree with what the publication says.”
Fire, NON -ProS -a profit of civic groups of civic freedoms, Critical towards MartinSaying, he threatened that “he would follow critical speakers regarding government performance” and Elon Musk.
Scientific magazines construct a base of what scientists understand about their fields and permit researchers to share latest arrangements with their friends. Before publishing, reliable scientific journals review applications and send tests to external researchers to envision errors or problematic reasoning, which is why they’re called reviews.
The Trump administration made dramatic financing and cuts of staff in federal scientific and medical organizations, including in the Health and Care Department and the National Institutes of Health. Some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the administration was reluctant to cuts. The administration also made cuts in academic institutions about the ideology that put some scientists about the influence of the government in independent magazines.
The Office of the American District of Columbia didn’t reply to the request of NBC News about a comment on the letter or his purpose.
The letter was originally published on X by Dr. Eric Reinhart, a clinicist, political anthropologist and social psychiatrist based in Chicago. Reinhart described a letter in his post to X, designed for “intimidation” and called him “fascist tactics”.
Laura Dimasi, a communication specialist with the CHEST Journal publisher, American College of Chest Physicians, confirmed that the organization received a letter published by Reinhart.
“Its content was published online without our knowledge,” said Dimasi. “A legal advisor is currently reviewing the application.”
American College of Chest Physicians is a skilled group with about 22,000 members in the field of pulmonary, critical and sleep medicine, According to his website.
AND Statement on the Publication website He states that the chest uses “strict review standards to ensure scientific discipline.”
“As a publisher, American College of Chest Physicians respects and supports the editorial independence of the magazine,” a statement.
In an interview with Reinhart, he said that he published a letter on X because he hoped to press the editors of scientific journals and a wider scientific community to mix and be adversity what he perceived as the government’s pressure on publishers.
“I understand that the magazine did not intend to make it public,” said Reinhart, adding that he didn’t receive a copy of the letter from someone from the magazine. “It is our duty to organize with each other and collect coordinated opposition to this.”
NBC News asked two former editors of scientific journals in the event that they have ever received letters from the Department of Justice regarding their publication practices, and so they each said they didn’t.
Jeremy Berg, who was once the editor of Science Family of Journals, said he interpreted the letter of the letter as “we are watching you”.
Michael Eisen, who once edited the biomedical magazine Elife, said that he didn’t know what to do from the letter, although he perceived him as part of the “salvo of the attacks” of the Trump administration on the academy, universities and science.
“It is difficult to know what it is. What are they doing? I just have never been in such a situation to provide information to the Department of Justice about something,” Eisen said, noting that magazines often receive questions from scientists about their practices, but not enforcing the law. “This is not an editorial inquiry. It comes from an organization that chases crime. It makes it different.”
Berg said that scientists tried to know whether the letter was part of a broader study of scientific magazines. NBC News contacted the leaders of families of scientific magazines asking in the event that they received similar letters.
Representatives of Plos, the National Statum of the United States Academy of National Sciences and the New England Journal of Medicine stated that they didn’t receive a similar investigation.
Representatives of Science, Nature and Jama, The Medical Journal of American Medical Association, didn’t answer the request for comment.
