Over the past few weeks, the letters have begun to reach medical journals across the country.

“What caught my attention was that more and more journals and publications…recognize that they are parties to various scientific debates.” Edward R. Martin Jr.interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in a letter to the diary Chest.

Martin then asked a series of questions - about misinformation, competitive perspectives, and the impact of funders such as advertisers and National Institutes of Health.

"The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities," the letter added. Martin asked for a response by May 2.

"We were surprised," Dr. Dr. said. Eric Rubineditor-in-chief New England Journal of Medicine,,,,, One of at least four diary editors has received letters from Martin, which is probably the most prominent. “Other journals have received letters before, so it’s not shocking, but it’s still surprising.”

In addition to Rubin's diary, Martin also Jama,,,,, Depend on American Medical Association; Obstetrics and Gynecology,"Magazine" American College of Obstetricians;and Chestpublished by the American College of Chest Physicians. There may be others.

"We are worried because there are some issues that suggest we may have bias in the research we report," Rubin said. "We are not. We have a very strict review process. We use external experts. We also have internal editors who are experts in their field. We spend a lot of time choosing the right articles to publish and trying to convey the message correctly. We think we think we are misleading antidotes."

Rubin said the letter mentioned that the journal has tax-free status.

"It does feel like there is a threatening tone in this letter, and it is trying to intimidate us," Rubin said.

First Amendment protection may not have deterrent

The letters do not cite any specific examples of presumptive bias, nor do they say what Martin might have taken.

But others say the letters have attracted serious attention.

“This is unprecedented.” JT Morrisa lawyer for the Foundation for the Free Speech Advocacy Organization's Personal Rights and Expression. He said the First Amendment protects medical journals.

"Who knows? We've seen this government take all sorts of actions without legal basis, but it's not stopping them," Morris said. "So there's always a concern that the federal government and its officials, and officials like Ed Martin, will step out and abuse authority and try to take advantage of legal processes and abuse the court system to silence scientific journals and medical professionals and anyone they disagree with."

Science depends on the publication of the journal

Medical journals play a crucial role in reviewing and disseminating scientific information, including which treatments and public health measures are effective and which may be dangerous or safe.

“This shows that this administration will try to interfere with scientific research and the scientific community.” Carl Bergstrom, Professor of Biology at the University of Washington. “They do almost anything and tamper with science in any way they think it will help.”

The letters are because the Trump administration has been working to influence what scientists say in many ways. The government has stifled communication from federal scientists and cut research on misinformation on how to talk about vaccines and LGBTQ health issues.

It has been asking scientists to scrub language in its grants and think of "wake," including gender terms.

“It’s a series of policies that attack the scientific community, whether it’s scientists in universities or institutions like NIH, FDA, CDC or journals and their editors,” Richard Horton said. The Lancet,,,,, Leading British Medical Journal. Horton said the Lancet has not received one of the letters, but has published it editorial Condemn the inquiry.

"It's a research ecosystem, and it's the operation of the research ecosystem that has brought these amazing breakthroughs over so many decades. That's what it's under attack," Holden said.

Trump administration criticizes journals

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy even has Threat legal action Oppose journals. Just before taking over NIH, Bhattacharya helped begin A new journey Designed to provide alternatives to mainstream publications.

Neither Martin nor the Justice Department responded to NPR's request for comment.

But some others have also asserted that major medical journals are biased.

In recent years, I and the U.S. prosecutors have become too radical and too left-wing to American scientific groups and journals. I am concerned about this. ” Judge Glockhe directed research at the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute.

But even Glock and others who share this view have stopped not wanting the Justice Department to investigate medical journals.

“On a whole, U.S. attorneys should not be related to the location of these specific journals,” Glock said. “They should not ask for information and should not try to encourage them to publish different types of editorials or change their editorial practices in ways that American lawyers think are appropriate.”

However, there is some support for how Martin passes the journal.

“They are absolutely biased and we’ve seen them caught by what I call the spots, a form of gatekeeper collusion with big pharma companies, public health agencies and academia, they all know each other.” Roger Severino Another conservative think tank, Heritage Foundation. "So, yes, there are a lot of biases and they should find the truth first. Instead, they are just another special interest."