JOURNAL WARS — Two Trump administration nominees with long track records of challenging the medical and public health establishments have launched a scientific journal that its founders say will promote open discourse and review but that critics fear could further obfuscate science for the public, Lauren and POLITICO’s Erin Schumaker report. The Journal of the Academy of Public Health, which launched Feb. 5, guarantees open access and an open peer review process with compensation, aiming to disrupt journal pillars like The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Marty Makary, President Donald Trump’s FDA commissioner pick, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, his NIH nominee, are listed as editorial board members on leave. Neither returned requests for comment. But the journal’s membership-style model and funding from the right-leaning RealClearFoundation — along with an editorial board that includes several Covid–19 contrarians — have drawn criticism from scientists. “It speaks to the potential for eroding scientific integrity and even, quite frankly, propaganda,” said Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist who consults for the CDC. The goal: Stanford epidemiologist and board member John Ioannidis said he thinks the experimental model is worth trying. “These are really good scientists, so I think that they should be able to publish what they want,” said Ioannidis, who co-authored a pandemic-era study with Bhattacharya that drew criticism in the scientific community for suggesting Covid wasn’t as deadly as feared. The fear: Other scientists worry that the journal’s structure could render it an echo chamber for iconoclastic viewpoints. If enough scientists don’t sign up to be peer reviewers, those who do run the risk of sharing similar views with the academy members whose work they are evaluating, said Angela Rasmussen, a University of Saskatchewan virologist and editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine. Dr. Alex Morozov, an oncologist who founded a nonprofit to promote better understanding of scientific evidence, said the new journal appears to be a successor to so-called “predatory” journals established to prioritize profits over quality. “Now we’re seeing the next trend where these journals are being set up not to make money but to promote a certain political agenda,” said Morozov, who recently spoke to the author behind a study that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited during a confirmation hearing that health experts say is flawed. IT’S FRIDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. Are you a probationary FDA employee? We want to hear from you. Send your tips to David Lim (dlim@politico.com or @davidalim) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com or @Gardner_LM).
|