A federal prosecutor in Washington, Edward Martin Jr., has sent letters to The New England Journal of Medicine and at least three other medical journals, accusing them of bias and external influence without evidence. Dr. Eric Rubin, editor in chief of N.E.J.M., described the letters as 'vaguely threatening,' raising concerns about the implication of partisanship in scientific debates. The letters questioned the journals' acceptance of competing viewpoints, transparency regarding supporters, and the involvement of the National Institutes of Health in research development. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's health secretary, has criticized these journals for allegedly misleading the public on scientific matters, threatening legal actions under anti-corruption laws. The situation has sparked fears of political influence on scientific publishing, with The Lancet publishing an editorial in solidarity, condemning the intimidation efforts as a threat to editorial independence and constitutional protections for free expression.

The New England Journal of Medicine and other journals have been accused of bias by Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist and interim U.S. attorney, suggesting they are compromised by external pressures without providing evidence.

Dr. Eric Rubin, N.E.J.M.'s editor in chief, perceives the communication as 'vaguely threatening,' as it questions the journal's impartiality and transparency, while emphasizing the importance of unbiased scientific evaluation.

The letters inquire about the acceptance of diverse scientific viewpoints, potential misleading by authors, and transparency regarding external influences, including funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has critiqued the journals for allegedly participating in public deception regarding scientific research, expressing intentions to litigate under federal anti-corruption laws if they don't adjust their publishing practices.

Concerns have arisen about political interference in scientific discourse, with The Lancet and other journals expressing solidarity against these intimidation tactics, warning of the harmful effects on scientific and medical integrity.

The letters are perceived as a means to pressure journals into publishing research aligned with certain political agendas, potentially compromising the quality of scientific discourse, particularly on contentious issues like climate change and vaccines.

The journals, reliant on public funding, are facing a deadline to respond to Martin's inquiries, risking political backlash but asserting their commitment to rigorous peer review and editorial independence as protected by the First Amendment.