Why is Ed Martin So Interested in Medical Journal Publication Practices?

Just what the doctor ordered - more lawyers and prosecutors meddling with scientific journals!

[UPDATE 4/23/25] When I wrote this a couple of days ago, I didn't feel the need to provide any concrete examples of the Trump Administration's war on science in the last paragraph, insofar as I assumed that readers are well aware of what has been going on in that sphere. But should you need such examples, Heather Souvaine Horn, over at the New Republic climate desk, has an article today that details just how ferocious Trump's that war has been./DGP]

Ed Martin, the Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, has sent out a letter to a rather obscure medical journal, "Chest" - a journal published in Illinois by the American College of Chest Physicians and focused on pulmonary and sleep-related medical research[*].  The letter, dated 4/14/2025, was first reported on the website "Medpage Today," and was, apparently, one of at least three that Martin sent out to different medical journals.

The letter raises a number of interesting questions.

1.  Why in God's name is the US Attorney for DC interested in the publication practices of an obscure specialty medical journal published in Illinois?  Is there not enough crime in DC to keep him otherwise fully occupied?
2. Why is the text of the letter such a mishmash of incomprehensible nonsense?

What does it mean - in English - to say that publications like CHEST Journal "are conceding that they … have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations)." [Emphasis added]

Why does it say "I look forward to I look forward to and appreciate your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request"?

Why does Martin begin by declaring that he "receive[s] frequent requests for information and clarification" and that he "take[s] these requests seriously and act[s] on them with letters like this one you are receiving"?  What is he talking about?  Is he implying that he has received a "request for information and clarification" about CHEST's publication practices, and that he "takes the request seriously"?  What does it mean to take a request for information and clarification about medical journal publication practices "seriously"?

I ask these questions not merely to embarrass Mr. Martin and to chide him for - rather unprofessionally - having sent out a letter over his signature that appears to have been neither edited nor proofread. Rather, it makes me wonder: perhaps this letter - like the now-infamous letter to Harvard, in which the Administration presented its astonishing new demands and which led the university to announce that it would not comply with them - was sent out by mistake?    

3. Here's an easier one:  Does the Editor-in-Chief of "CHEST" have any obligation to respond to Mr. Martin's questions?  The answer, of course, is "No, he does not," and if I were CHEST's lawyer, I'd recommend replying to Martin's request with a polite but firm "No." No obligation is (or can be) imposed on the Editor by a letter -- even a letter from a US Attorney - simply requesting information about how he runs his operations. Mr. Martin has plenty of ways to impose such an obligation on the Editor and to get that information via subpoena or warrant if, in fact, he requires it for an investigation his office is conducting or some case his office is prosecuting.

4.  Perhaps most importantly: What is the ultimate purpose - the grand strategy - behind the Administration's war on science and scientific research?  I don't get it. As readers are well aware, there are plenty of Administration policy objectives that I think are unwise, short-sighted, ineffective, or worse.  But in most cases I understand what they're trying to accomplish, and why some people believe they're worth pursuing. Getting rid of the Department of Education, eliminating US foreign aid, opening up more coal-fired electrical plants, loosening/eliminating environmental regulations - they're all terrible ideas (in my opinion), but I get where they're coming from and I understand that there is a viable and coherent point of view behind them, misguided though it may be (in my opinion).

But the war on science makes no sense to me whatsoever; perhaps there are some readers who can enlighten me on that. In what alternate world are we made better off by weakening or crippling our major scientific institutions?  In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc. Why the hostility? Why would anybody want to take them all down?

---

*The most recent issue, for example, contained articles on "Beta-Blockers in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension," "The Role of Bronchial Biopsy in the Prediction of Response to Biologic Therapy in Severe Uncontrolled Asthma," "Risk Factors and Clinical Impact of Severe Pneumothorax After Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction With Endobronchial Valves," and the like.

 

Comments

[Drewski]

Medpage Today is reporting that at least two other medical journals have received similar letters, although it did not name them in its article.

[BBSquatter]

blame the Democrat Judge in New Mexico because ...you know.... dem Judges can't help themselves when it comes to breaking the law. It's all part of the Resistance™

David Post will likely be writing an in-detail analysis of this travesty of judicial miscarriage, knowing Post is always "fair & balanced". But in the event he is tripping on his TDS (since January 2025), here's the 411:

You're welcome DP

Democrat Judge Resigns After Suspected Tren De Aragua Gangbanger Arrested At His Home

A New Mexico Democrat judge resigned after an illegal migrant suspected of being a Tren de Aragua gang member was arrested at his residence.

Dona Ana County Magistrate Judge Jose “Joel” Cano resigned from the bench shortly after Cristhian Ortega-Lopez was arrested by federal authorities in March, according to the Albuquerque Journal. Ortega-Lopez, a 23-year-old Venezuelan national, is accused of being an illegal migrant in possession of firearms and having affiliations with Tren de Aragua, an international criminal syndicate and U.S.-designated terrorist organization

https://www.aol.com/news/democrat-judge-resigns-suspected-tren-172543588.html

[hobie]

Clearly Putin wants this...but why?

[David Nieporent]

Doubt it. Martin is a zealot. He just wants to keep his name in front of Trump for doing Trumpy things as much as possible.

[hobie]

But why has he (Martin) been on Russian TV nonstop for years now

[Zarniwoop]

With that strategy, Martin probably has a better shot at getting nominated to the S.Ct. in case of a vacancy than Prof "Top 200" Blackman does.

[hayesmi5]

It reads like he took an old collection form letter he used and tried to turn it into a DOJ document. Nothing more than political hackery.

[Jett's Pop]

"In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc."

Less (however modest) public debt? Determinations of what constitutes "good science" worthy of financial support being made by actors other than the government?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with those objectives (or, with respect to the first, that it would make any difference of consequence). But it seems as easy to come up with possible justifications as it would be to justify eliminating the Department of Education or foreign aid.

[JasonT20]

In the short term, reducing the number of IRS employees would reduce the federal deficit, right? Or would it, since the deficit is the difference between spending and revenue? If there are fewer auditors checking to see if people are being honest in paying taxes, would revenues stay the same?

Wanting to cut spending as a way to reduce the federal debt is a rational goal. Doing so with so little thought about the benefits of particular spending programs that it would have highly negative results? There is no rational connection between that and the goal of reducing debt. It is inherent in the word "rational" that they would have considered the consequences of those actions, if they were acting rationally. If those cuts are justified, then they would have articulated their thinking as part of their justification to the public. So, what do they say those cuts? How rational is their justification?

[Longtobefree]

Here's a really interesting concept; instead of considering subjective "benefits" of a federal program, consider if the US Constitution authorizes it.

I say subjective because it is always a good idea for the recipients, never a good idea for the few that pay for it.

[A Japanese Student]

We have long concluded that Taxing and Spending Clause authorizes all kinds of federal grants and contracts.

Another view is that the federal government has all the powers a regular corporation would have - to enter into contracts, for example. Under this theory enumerated powers only matter when the government seeks to exercise its sovereign authority.

[Social Justice is neither]

Name the other "corporation" that gets to rob your bank account or toss you in a vell for a product you never wanted?

[ReaderY]

I’ll leave the corporate theory aside. The Spending Clause authorizes Congress to spend money to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” That’s a pretty open grant of power. People often disagree on what’s good for the welfare of the American people. But it’s Congress’ job to resolve those disagreements.

There are limits on Congress’ power to regulate. But Congress’ power to spend money has been very broad since the Founding.

[Rossami]

No, Congress' spending power was remarkably narrow for the first century. There aren't a lot of legal cases saying though, so, because Congress itself thought so. The federal legislative record is full of debates over whether X was a constitutionally-authorized expenditure - very often ending with an answer of "no".

That legislative opinion on Congress' spending power took a hit during the Wilson years and had a stake put through its heard during the Roosevelt years. But compared to "the Founding", that's a recent innovation.

[Katall]

True. But it was Congress's perogative to decide constitutionality I the first instance. Then the predisent, who signed it into law. If Article III agrees, it should be a done deal. If the president wants a reform, he should ask Congress to pass a bill.

[ReaderY]

It’s Congress’ job to decide. The whole point of having a legislature is that opinion can change.

That is, early Congresses’ opinions aren’t binding on later Congresses. Nor is their vision of how large a federal government they wanted. The Framers used a broad term.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Something like 75% of medical peer-reviewed papers could not be replicated. This might not matter as much for psychology and other faux sciences with a 90% replicability failure rate, but it sure as shit matters for medicine.

Get government out of science subsidies. All it does is encourage marginal researchers to publish shit.

[damikesc]

Yeah. The replication problem is becoming an outright crisis. We do not seem to have science any longer.

[Sarcastr0]

Your last sentence does not follow from your first.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

His first is "Yeah.", and by george, yes the last sentence does follow the first.

(I uncapitalized that word just for you.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

But the psychology and other faux sciences are also government funded....

[Reallynotbob]

I think the opposite conclusion is warranted: don't let private funding be the dominant source of research grants. The reason for the replication "crisis" as it's being called appears to arise from researchers reporting in a way that emphasizes exciting results, i.e. novel ones. That is happening already naturally, but swapping the funding source to, say, pharma interests or for-profit research funds puts more, not less, pressure on researchers to report results of dubious replicability.

[bernard11]

"In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc."

Fewer smartass scientists running around telling people the "science" they read on Breitbart or hear on Fox is wrong.

[MollyGodiva]

So you trust partisan news networks more than actual PhD scientists who are experts in their field?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Given the person's comment history, I took the comment as sarcastic.

[bernard11]

Check out Poe's Law, Molly.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Like Michael Mann? Your knee is jerking pretty heavily today, maybe you ought to get it checked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Count on it. What will come next will be attempts to use government to compel publishers to, "diversify," content. The aim will be to compel publication of unscientific right-wing counter-advocacy, masquerading as science, into scientific journals. Medical and environmental counter-advocacy will be prominent among the themes demanded.

[hobie]

RFK wants more carcass-related content. Has to be.

[SRG2]

The problem with science:

1. Science is elitist, so ignores real Americans
2. Science sometimes gives you answers you don't like, and so is wrong
4. You can't tell scientists what the science should be, which is disloyal.
3. Many scientists are liberals, :Jews, Chinese, etc and so they're not real Americans
4. Science depends on evidence and so sometimes when new evidence comes in, the science changes., This is confusing to real Americans. What's true yesterday must be true today, and tomorrow (unless it's something Trump said).

[Stephen Lathrop]

5. In context of scientific advance, accurate inferences about the founding era require more-and-more historical expertise, making originalism too hard to practice for mere lawyers and judges.

[hobie]

Just like curriculum on slavery makes the redneck feel bad, science makes the redneck feel dumb. Better to just eliminate them both than to rehabilitate the redneck

[rloquitur]

Science told us that there was no way that the lab leak theory was true . . . .

Well, not real science. The definition of science is not "that which comes out of a scientist's mouth."

You idiots lost us when you tried to defend Mann's "hide the decline" comment. Fuck off.

[SRG2]

Science told us that there was no way that the lab leak theory was true . .

I think you'll find that the general claim was that the wet market explanation was the most likely, and the lab leak hypothesis was unlikely

<You idiots lost us when you tried to defend Mann's "hide the decline" comment. Fuck off.

Nah. You were not there to be had. And the science doesn't depend on what Michael Mann says. And meanwhile, https://skepticalscience.com/mikes-nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

So you can fuck right off.

[rloquitur]

Give me a break. The media, aided and abetted by "scientists" like Dr. Fauci suppressed the lab leak theory. It was pathetic.

And as for Mann, you people cheerleaded his bullshit lawsuit.

And by the by, I think anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps is a fucking moron.

[damikesc]

If the science cannot be replicated, do we have science at all?

[Sarcastr0]

You still have information.
You still have something that is more likely than not.
You still have very smart people working on challenging puzzles.
You still have the fact that it couldn't be replicated! That's a big and well-defined puzzle!

After all, the greatest paradigm-shifting discoveries don't begin with 'Eureka' they begin with 'that's funny.'

Remember, we couldn't get chemistry until we had alchemy for quite some time.

[Reallynotbob]

"....anyone who DOESN'T believe that CO2 DOESN'T exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps..."

This should be good. I'll bite.

What DOES exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps, given that measurable upward global temps are a thing?

[JasonT20]

And by the by, I think anyone who doesn't believe that CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps is a fucking moron.

Trying to unpack that double negative: you're calling people that do believe that CO2 does exert upward pressure on global atmospheric temps "a fucking moron." Right?

Why? What is your understanding of climate and CO2's role in it, that you'd think this?

[rloquitur]

the opposite. CO2 does exert upward pressure on temps, which causes more rain, which then causes more CO2 to be withdrawn from atmosphere--which is why CPE ended.

[JasonT20]

You're talking about something that occurred over 230 million years ago. Where does the CO2 go, then, when it is removed from the atmosphere due to rainfall? That is chemical weathering, and it is a really slow process compared to timescales relevant to us, unless we figure out a way to enhance it through geoengineering.

This is what I've been getting at. Be skeptical of what you see on climate skeptic websites or social media posts just as much as you are skeptical of the 'consensus'. If you had been, you'd have found out for yourself what I linked after a few minutes of looking.

“If it gets hotter, the silicate weathering goes faster, and it pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if it cools down, silicate weathering slows down, so CO2 builds up,” said R.J. Graham, a doctoral student at the University of Oxford. “So it sort of acts as a thermostat for Earth’s climate.”

But now, human-forced climate change is warming Earth too quickly for it to be controlled by natural silicate weathering, which can take hundreds of thousands of years to work. To have a larger impact, Graham said we’d have to use enhanced weathering to speed up the process.

[Don Nico]

The "wet market" was actually not an explanation or origin as it was merely a claim of zoonotic origin with no evidence of an animal source.
Hence it was a claim about an intermediate source. In contrast the lab leak theory was a claim that the WIV has the original source of the virus.
The lab leak explanation was never unlikely; it was discounted by the NIH and CDC. And we now know why.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, no; the so-called "lab leak explanation" was deliberately kept vague as to whether it meant that the virus was created in the lab or was just being studied there and then, well, leaked.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Contagion spreads. After a novel source of contagion has spread, it will always look like the place it was first recognized must be the source. With lots of labs showing proximate contagion, what makes any one of them the near-certain pick? What even makes any of them the near-certain pick, as opposed to some other possibility?

Betting one horse to win, against an extensive field, can rightly be justified only by some factor inherent in that hypothetical winner. That is what the lab leak theory has been challenged to show, and such evidence has not been identified. There have been attempts to lie the evidence into existence.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Just like curriculum on slavery makes the redneck feel bad, science makes the redneck feel dumb. Better to just eliminate them both than to rehabilitate the redneck"

You realize that "redneck" is an ethnic slur, right? Maybe not as bad as the Kirkland-word, but a slur nevertheless.

And what I recall is that there were laws against *deliberate racist harassment* - so that public schools were not allowed to teach people of one race that they *ought* to feel bad for what other members of the same race did (e. g., slavery). Of course it's racist harassment to tell someone they *ought* to feel bad for what other people of the same skin tone did.

[JasonT20]

Why the hostility? Why would anybody want to take them all down?

Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public. Once that is accomplished, then anyone that wants to use government power can simply assert that they know best. And they can then dismiss challenges to their assertions by the "experts" in relevant fields. If expertise is not valuable, if there is no objective truth based on verifiable facts, then anything that they want to be true can be asserted to be true without logic and evidence to support it.

People are easier to manipulate through emotional appeals if they can't turn to objective facts or trusted experts to counter irrational justifications. Or, if the people have been demotivated from wanting to seek objective evidence.

Populists, personality cults, demagogues, and grifters view experts and their knowledge as obstacles to their goals. They will misuse the idea of skepticism to point it at those professionals, in that they will work to convince their targets (marks) to only view the experts with skepticism, not them. That isn't skepticism. Skepticism is a way of thinking that applies to all claims of fact and all arguments equally.

"Don't trust the experts. If you see anyone saying that I'm wrong, then you know that you can't trust them! Only someone corrupt would doubt us me!"

[SRG2]

Very good!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Once that is accomplished,"

Too late! Government does not have to do it, science has largely done it to themselves.

[rloquitur]

I'll tell you where the hostility comes from:

(1) lockdowns without any cost-benefit analysis

(2) dismissing the lab leak theory is fantasy.

All of you can go fuck yourselves.

[Reallynotbob]

People running from beach: "It's a tsunami!! Run!!!"
rloquitur: [does cost-benefit analysis]

[grb]

If that's where the "hostility" comes from, then take your own advice.

1. Even if lockdowns were overbroad or mistaken in scope, I wonder at your whining about a traditional measure done during previous pandemics and taken while this disease was underway. Please note there was never any "science" involved in the Right's childish tantrums over covid measures or its precious lab-leak theory. Both were pure politics, nothing more. Now, I agree a serious and comprehensive study should be made of what measures did & didn't work, and I'm sure some scientific judgements were mistaken. That goes without saying given the circumstances. But the scientists were trying to make rational fact-based decisions in a ongoing emergency. That's in total contrast to their right-wing critics, who were throwing terrible-two-grade snits based on nothing but polling.

2. Apparently you don't know that the science still supports a natural origin for covid, now more so than before. You're dependent on politicians doing political things, with the recent CIA reassessment being a case in point. Their original conclusion was "impossible to tell", but the incoming agency head was a lab-leak fanboy and announced he wanted a decision. So they dusted off the old report, changed the finding, and added as caveat that the conclusion was shaky and based on no new evidence. From that bureaucratic two-step, hundreds of exultant posts from the rloquitur-style ignorant ensued. Or there was the German "conclusion", which was obviously absurd by its 80-90% certainty number.

Meanwhile, scientific research continues to support a zoonotic origin of COVID. Please read the below link on findings that suggest the intermediate host is now identified.

https://jabberwocking.com/are-raccoon-dogs-the-key-origin-of-the-covid-virus/

[Magister]

Starting a pandemic could have been an effective strategy to oppose human development that the racoon dogs in Pom Poko did not attempt.

[damikesc]

"Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public."

"Experts" did that exceedingly well without any help from others.

[JasonT20]

You, Bob, and rloquitur said basically the same thing, so I'll just make one reply to you all.

What makes you think that scientific "experts" did this to themselves? If it is skepticism that has driven you to that opinion, then surely you can explain it.

[David Nieporent]

Engaging my inner cynic, the anti-science motivation here is to destroy confidence in "experts" among the general public.

A similar approach applies to the news media. Fox News was not Fair & Balanced, but it aspired (especially at the outset) to provide a different take on the actual news. But its even farther out there counterparts don't care whether you believe them; they're fine if you believe nobody and think everything is a lie. That serves Trump's interests just as well.

[ReaderY]

The war on science makes perfect epistemological sense in an epistemology thoroughly explored in George Orwell’s 1984. Scientists provide a basis for people to question whether their leader is telling the truth. No leader who seeks total power - and Trump is a leader who seeks power over the individual self as absolute as Oceana’s, including the power to have people not just declare but actually BELIEVE that white is black and black is white on his say-so - can put up with people who have psychological difficulties doing what their Leader demands of them. And 1984 thoroughly explores, in the person of Winston Smith, the kind of psychologically disabled anti-socially disordered people that scientists are in such a world, antisocial psychoses in deep need of healing and obliteration in the Ministry of Love.

You will note that there was essentially no technological progress of any kind between the 1940s and 1984 in Orwell’s novel, except perhaps for weapons and techniques of psychological manipulation. None of the world’s powers had the slightest interest in such things. Why should Trump? He wants followers whose faith in him is strong enough that they will believe not just whatever he tells them about the outside world, but also that he can walk on water and heal them by laying on hands. Why would such a person be interested in Western medicine? It could only serve as a rival source of power. And Trump wants no rivals.

Belief such things have efficacy directly detracts from belief in him as the sole source of efficacy, just as belief in alternative sources of truth directly detracts from him as the sole source of truth. No person who aspires to power over others, as absolute and total as Trump craves, who craves not just to be loved but to be worshipped, who seeks to help his followers get beyond the limitations of their rational minds into the total bliss of raw adulation and utter obedience, could put up with such things.

[rloquitur]

This ignores the roles of scientists in the Covid coverup.

[SRG2]

Do you deny that viruses exist?

[rloquitur]

Do you deny that man-made ones exist?

[Bruce Hayden]

They lied about the probable origins of the virus. They lied about masking and social distancing. And they lied about the safety and efficacy of their novel, mostly untested, experimental, gene therapy that they forced much of the world to take as if it were a traditional vaccine. It wasn’t, and isn’t.

[Reallynotbob]

I disagree, but let's assume you're 100% correct.

Why would those circumstances lead you to conclude that science should not be conducted?

[SRG2]

Answer mine first.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump is a leader who seeks power over the individual self as absolute as Oceana’s, including the power to have people not just declare but actually BELIEVE that white is black and black is white on his say-so "

You need help. This is just insane.

[ReaderY]

Completely agree with you. But since it’s where we are right now, we all need help.

There are numerous tells over the years. For example, the size of his inaugural crowd. Lies are every bit as important to Trump as they were to Orwell’s 1984. So is belief in Trump’s omnipotence. There many, many tells that Trump seeks followers willing to believe his word over what their eyes and ears tell them, and look to him in a messianic/avataristic way.

Seeking that level of cult-like power over others simply fits in with both his personality and his behavior. I mean, it’s not like the personalities and behavior of smaller-scale cult leaders haven’t been studied before.

I’m not the one making the war on science. I’m just pointing out why that war makes conplete rational sense according to Trump’s own logic, which, while crazy from our point of view, is internally consistent in its own way once you understand it. It also helps explain why so many people are attracted to him and why those deeply into him seem to have their personalities altered. Human beings are in many respects wired to be attracted to cults, and cult leaders no how to manipulate the wires to convert them into totally obedient followers.

This is not a joke. The cult leader hypothesis is a very serious hypothesis that I am offering to Professor Post as an explaination and proposing that he seriously consider.

[ReaderY]

Heck, it’s not like there haven’t been other head-of-state cult leaders in the past. Or present, for that matter. There’s a family resemblance. There are tells.

[ReaderY]

This Psychology Today article from 2012 identifies 50 classic traits of a dangerous cult leader.

Can you identify a single one of the 50 that Trump DOESN’T have?

It’s spot on.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders?amp

[Dr. Ed 2]

"You will note that there was essentially no technological progress of any kind between the 1940s and 1984 in Orwell’s novel"

And how much technological progress was England responsible for during those 50 years?

[Reallynotbob]

More importantly, how much was America responsible for during those 50 years? Seems like we should keep going, no?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If we make policy based on science, then whoever controls the science controls the policy. We saw this with the lab leak coverup, and with the Biden administration trying to influence the WPATH standards to affect the policy and legal outcomes, and I'm sure we'll see it in the Trump administration.

[MollyGodiva]

Nobody "controls" science. That is kinda the point of science.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure Jan.

[JasonT20]

Scientists advance their careers, get grants, and tenure based on their ability to come up with new insights and new discoveries. Original research that breaks new ground or confirms the new discoveries of others is what is rewarded. That makes science highly competitive. If someone comes up with some new hypothesis and an experiment or study supporting it, being the one to prove it wrong would be valuable to one's career. If their own experiments support it, on the other hand, that experience working with that new idea will be valuable as they try and find ways to extend it even further and make their own fresh discovery.

The goal is to find models and theories that work. No scientist would look back on a 30-40 year career and be content with having a mediocre and undistinguished record, see that the hypotheses and research that they published has been proven wrong, and think, "Well, at least I made decent money and get to retire now." People that would think that way are highly unlikely to go into science. People that are dishonest, lazy, or dogmatic can find greater success and rewards elsewhere. Like becoming a law professor at some low-ranked college in Texas.

[Zarniwoop]

People that are dishonest, lazy, or dogmatic can find greater success and rewards elsewhere. Like becoming a law professor at some low-ranked college in Texas.

Thread winner!

[Rossami]

Interesting, given that you've repeatedly commented previously that whoever pays for "the science" is obviously controlling it and that's why you can't trust tobacco research paid for by tobacco companies, etc. But suddenly, the government is immune to that entire part of human nature?

[MollyGodiva]

I don't recall saying that. I don't know why I would because that is not my position. Granting agencies can direct the direction of the science they fund, but not the outcome of the research.

[rloquitur]

Yeah, government officials had no part of the lab leak coverup. Fuck off.

[MollyGodiva]

If there was a lab leak coverup, it was done by Trump political appointees.

[rloquitur]

Um nope. You're so full of it.

[MollyGodiva]

Who else would? It was Trump appointees that were in charge and controlled the messaging.

[Don Nico]

Wow. That it a lame comment. There was a clear reason why the NIH Director Collins and D. Fauci wanted that hypothesis squelched. That had nothing to do with Mr. Trump or his many flaws

[Reallynotbob]

And...? What was their clear reason?

[A Japanese Student]

The government is not immune. If your research is subsidized by the government, you have an ethical obligation to disclose it to the public.

Publicly funded research is seen better than tobacco-company directed research because the government is not expected to intervene once the grant is made. Also, any reasonable scientist would disapprove of government intrusion into academia.

[Rossami]

Numerous studies addressing publication bias disagree with your assumptions.

And while i strongly agree with your statment that "you have an ethical obligation to disclose [your research results] to the public" that paid for it, the government itself (and a great many researchers) strenuously disagree.

[Sarcastr0]

And while i strongly agree with your statment that "you have an ethical obligation to disclose [your research results] to the public" that paid for it, the government itself (and a great many researchers) strenuously disagree..

First, you misinterpreted what AJS said.

Second, what in the world are you talking about? Scientists want to publish. So does the government.

[Rossami]

Couldn't be bothered to look up any of the articles on publication bias, I see. Come back when you have. In the meantime, let the adults talk.

[Purple Martin]

Tried to find something supporting his predetermined view that publication bias is a relevant issue to this set of circumstances. Couldn't, so decides to assign that homework to others, hoping to wriggle out from under his dilemma.

You haven't established sufficient credibility with the adults here to assign tasks to anyone.

[Sarcastr0]

You didn't talk about bias, you said that scientists didn't want to disclose their results to the public.

But the existence of publication bias doesn't mean lets not do science anymore. Which is what you amazingly seem to be arguing.

On the Internet.

[Commenter_XY]

The adults are talking. Hush now.

[rloquitur]

The problem, Molly, is that "what scientists say" is somehow "science." Let's take the issue of AGCC. Only a fool would say that increased CO2 doesn't exert upward pressure on atmospheric temps. (How do we think Snowball Earths melted?) But does that mean we need to listen to scientists about what needs to be done? Scientists don't know if, net net, the AGCC is a bad thing. They don't know if the proposed responses are worse than the disease. They don't know the time horizon (is this a 500 year problem?), and they don't know if decarbonization is viable, given free-rider issues, national sovereignty etc.

[MollyGodiva]

Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. One does not disregard science because it does not have all the answers. Also there is far more known about climate change than you are giving them credit for. We are seeing the negative effects of climate change now.

[rloquitur]

"Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. One does not disregard science because it does not have all the answers. Also there is far more known about climate change than you are giving them credit for. We are seeing the negative effects of climate change now."

Sez you. I am pretty knowledgeable about climate science. But I am guessing that you were good with all the lockdowns. Where was the science behind that massive ruination of people's lives and freedoms?

[Don Nico]

"Science gives you the best information in which to decide a course of action. "
Actually it only gives one partial information with its uncertainties to about how to make a prudential decision.

[SRG2]

The argument "if you don't know everything then you don't know anything" is not a good one.

[rloquitur]

Yes, but we are going to be spending untolled trillions, as well as massive lost freedoms to combat something that may or may not even be harmful. That's just stupid.

[MollyGodiva]

When did we do that?

[rloquitur]

If you don't know what the Climatistas have in store for us, you're not paying attention, Hope you like eating bugs.

[SRG2]

Cancel your home insurance

[Reallynotbob]

This is the Panglossian response. "To alter our future, we must spend money and experience hardships, so the status quo is the best of all possible worlds."

[NvEric]

Orbital position and solar output influence conditions on Earth more than CO2. Add in ocean currents and ocean turnover along with CO2 - these are results of change more than drivers of change.

"Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 has other thoughts.

Science / doctors say lowering your blood pressure can be beneficial, but there's no blood pressure which is optimal.

[rloquitur]

Yes, and that's why I say that we don't know the time horizon of the problem. But CO2 increases, over time, will drive up temps. So given that these other factors exist, ultimately, if we are at, say, 500 ppm CO2, we are going to have a hotter planet, all things being equal.

The Carnian Pluvial Event lasted approx. 2 million years. Presumably, the rains caused more withdrawal of CO2 from atmosphere at a greater rate than normal, which ultimately led to the end of the event.

Right now, increased CO2 may be a good thing, net net. Hard to tell. Ultimately, and who knows timeline, we can get palm trees in Alaska and a mid-American seaway, lol.

[Rossami]

re: "CO2 increases, over time, will drive up temps"

While that is known to be true in laboratory conditions and is true for the Venusian atmosphere, even a simple statement like that is not yet known to be true in a terrestrial (that is, ocean-dominated) environment. The problem is that "all things" are never equal.

Note that the available evidence from ice cores - some of the most time-precise data we have - suggests that CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by several hundreds of years. That is, increasing (or decreasing) temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels (via increasing or decreasing ocean outgassing rates), not the other way around.

[Sarcastr0]

The lag IIRC is regarding the Ice Age.

All this shows is that CO2 is not the *only* driver of climate change.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, nobody is taking ice cores from continental glaciers a mile deep in New England. There is every reason to suppose continental glaciers now extant in Greenland were laid down under climate conditions notably different than those which drove the various ice ages. If not, why aren't the ice ages still with us?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Rossami, for all anyone knows now, climate cooling is what triggers an end to an ice age, and delivers an increase in atmospheric carbon.

Maybe continental glacier advance is not related to cooling, but to warming. During intervals when climate warms, arctic sea ice melts to a minimum, which opens a source of abundant moisture to nourish winter glaciers on land. Then the glaciers grow to where they reflect enough energy into space that the climate once again cools, the arctic ocean freezes over, and the continental glaciers get starved for moisture and recede.

That opens land to boreal forest development, which makes atmospheric carbon increase, and climate warms. You get a repeating cycle of multiple ice ages, until plate tectonics rearrange the land distribution around the polar regions, or something happens to affect heat transfer by ocean currents, or something else.

That notion of a cycle of repeated glacial advance and recession seems to square with geologic evidence. It does not seem to characterize all of geologic history, but instead to define a discreet era, comprising a smallish fraction of geologic annals.

Gathering evidence is one thing. Understanding it is another. For now, it is easy to understand industrial carbon release is warming the global climate. Physics predicts it; measurements confirm it; observable climate effects world-wide example the expected effects.

The big picture stuff from geologic history is interesting, but irrelevant to understanding the effects of industrial age carbon releases into the atmosphere. Unlike all that stuff about the past, that industrial phenomenon never happened before.

[JasonT20]

Orbital position and solar output influence conditions on Earth more than CO2.

Over what time scales are the Milankovitch cylces relevant? (Or the hypotheses of that paper you linked.) What evidence is there that solar output has changed significantly in the last several decades?

Science / doctors say lowering your blood pressure can be beneficial, but there's no blood pressure which is optimal.

Uh, what? Of course there is an optimal range of blood pressure. At least, if you want a lower risk of heart disease and stroke than if your BP was higher than that optimal range. (And, obviously, too low is bad as well.

The "optimal" range of temperatures and other climate variables for humans living on Earth is going to be fairly close to what we have now. Why? Because we grow our food in places with the right combinations of rainfall, temperature, soil health, and many other things that will change if the climate does. We built a lot of cities near the oceans to make transporting large quantities of goods all over the world easier. Even setting aside industrialization, there are many millions of people living near the ocean because it is a food source.

Seeing the problems with experimenting with the Earth's climate like we have been for 200 years, now?

[Rossami]

This letter may be misguided and is certainly poorly written but in no way is this evidence of a "war on science". Nor, by the way, is the review of NIH grants. You ask "[i]n what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants" while ignoring the fact that we're broke and can't afford endless studies on how transgender hormone treatments affect mice skeletons, how cocaine affects honey bee dances, the "risky" sexual habits of quails on cocaine, hamsters on steroids or whether rats on nicotine are more or less sensitive to pain.

Some NIH-funded studies are probably worth the money. Those will likely have little difficulty finding other patrons to support their research. The vast majority, however, are part of the "scientific-technological elite" capture that Eisenhower warned about in the same speech where he raised the conflicts of interest inherent to the military-industrial complex. The latter half of his speech gets a lot less attention and air time than it should.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Eisenhower did not warn against scientific research.

[Purple Martin]

Specifically...

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.'

...is a warning against neither "scientific research" nor "new electronic computers."

[rloquitur]

"scientists" lied about COVID-19 origins; they also failed to do cost-benefit analysis regarding lockdowns etc.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2025/04/18/bonkers-ruling-judge-rules-fathers-cant-wear-pink-wristbands-to-protest-biological-males-in-girls-sports/

More thuggery from the left. You guys suck out loud.

[rloquitur]

So where was Professor Post when the Mass AG was subpoenaing various organizations for their communications etc.? Nowhere to be found--so why should we care now?

[rloquitur]

And the medical journals should write back, "With all due respect, go fuck yourself." to Mr. Martin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" publications like CHEST Journal "are conceding that they … have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations)."

1: There are postal mailing regulations for magazines, and I suspect that CHEST still uses this greatly discounted rate to distribute paper editions of its journal. There are ownership and financial regulations which must be published, and I suspect similar fraud regulations if you are paid to endorse something and don't say that.

2: Much of the country believes that the response to Covid was intended to benefit Big Pharma at the expense of cheaper but equally (or more) effective treatments. I'm not a MD nor do I pretend to be, but when you start yanking MD licenses for disagreeing with Big Pharma, you've made it political and asked for something like this.

3: If you tell people to "shut up and obey" during Covid, you should expect pressback. The same thing happened after Vietnam with the Church Commission.

The tradition of Andrew Jackson lives on -- Big Science and Big Pharma ran roughshod over us and now it's payback time...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Open the Books just reported:

"Controversial National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci left the federal government as America’s highest paid bureaucrat with a final salary of $480,654. That’s tens of thousands more than the President of the United States, a historic number that triggered a similarly unprecedented pension.

Well, he’s doing even better post-retirement.

Financial disclosures reveal that Fauci and his wife’s combined financial assets kept climbing by more than $3.5 million in 2023, to just over $15 million total. Most of that growth—$3.3 million—came from Fauci’s accounts."

[Roger S]

How is this a war on science? If the journal editors are such good scientists, they should be able to easily answer some questions about their policies. Their policies should be public anyway.

[rloquitur]

It's not a war on science. It's a war on hackery. They really shouldn't be asking these questions, but the left allowed this sort of shit.

[Kleppe]

"But the war on science makes no sense to me whatsoever; perhaps there are some readers who can enlighten me on that."

The "war on science," to the extent that it exists, is being waged by the people who angrily insist that humans can change their sex.

[MaddogEngineer]

Maybe he's interested in the same way that the Biden DOJ thought the FBI might find insurrectionists and domestic terrorists at local school board meetings.

[rloquitur]

Merrick Garland should be imprisoned for the rest of his life for that.

Nowhere to be found were leftist hacks who whine about letters.

[David Nieporent]

My god, will you people ever stop lying about this?

[MaddogEngineer]

Where's the lie?

Just because you find things inconvenient, doesn't make them untrue. My side is virtuous, your side is villainous is exhausting.

Remember, I didn't vote for this or that.

[Sarcastr0]

So here is your thesis: "the Biden DOJ thought the FBI might find insurrectionists and domestic terrorists at local school board meetings."

Back it up.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Because most all medical journals (including the most famous of them) are full of DEI, leftist, unscientific claptrap with numbers thrown in for gravitas.

[rloquitur]

But what will Justice Kentanji cite?

[Frank Drackman]

I’m guessing you mean “JAMA”, I won a year of NEJM during Internship, still have them, “Case Presentations” were the best, like you’d ever have everyone in the same room like that, remember they used SI units for some reason, reporting Blood Glucose in millimoles/liter instead of mg/dl, still don’t know what to make of a Glucose of “4”

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

“Chest” is one of the Big names, like the Beatles “White” Album or Prince, the really top Journals have one word titles, like “Brain”, “Spleen” or my favorite
“Vagina”

Frank “Have you seen the new “Vagina”?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK -- what is the ISBN number of Vagina?
If any library carries it, it will have one.
If not, who is the publisher, and address?

I can't seem to find it, and I've also never seen its cover on a dorm door, so I doubt it is in print.

[Frank Drackman]

Doesn’t surprise me that you haven’t seen Vagina and would go to a Library looking for one

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I went to the internet and saw lots of articles about vaginas, including one that had a flashlight in it, but no journal titled "Vagina" so if you can't produce an ISBN number, I call BS.

[Frank Drackman]

Ya think???

[Armchair]

Let's take Mr. Post's questions somewhat seriously...

1. " Why in God's name is the US Attorney for DC interested in the publication practices of an obscure specialty medical journal published in Illinois?"

-Medical journals like these (which despite being published in Illinois have National circulation) have a fair amount of influence over their profession. Doctors, to a certain degree, rely upon them to keep current in their field. If the journal, for example, fully endorses a new Beta-Blocker for a disease...that has influence on the doctor, and potentially affects what medication they prescribe, and thus forwards more profits to the manufacturer of that medication.

If the manufacturer of that medication was, for example, paying the journal for positive press, but was not indicated as doing such payment, that may be viewed as a type of fraudulent behavior.
Openness and declaring all conflicts of interest is important.

2. NA
3. While the editor of CHEST may not have a legal obligation, just telling the USA to pound sand is a poor idea. That type of behavior encourages the USA to come back with legal backing. A more reasonable approach where commonly available information regarding publication practices for CHEST is given to the USA is a better option.

4. "Perhaps most importantly: What is the ultimate purpose?"

Openness, clarity, full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, full scientific discourse, lack of informal censorship of minority opinions. "Science" does best when all views and courses of inquiry are published. When certain views become politically unacceptable to publish, you can get Lysenkoism or other items.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not just profit for the drug manufacturer, but additional expense for Medicare/Medicaid to pay for it, and with really expensive new drugs, the decision to cover a particular drug can be controversial.
Case in point, anti obesity drugs are not covered. https://gi.org/2025/04/17/anti-obesity-drugs-will-not-be-covered-by-medicare-and-medicaid-in-2026/

The same issue is going to SCOTUS with the requirement that all insurance plans must cover PrEP. Effectiveness of it is relevant.

[shawn_dude]

Your explanation is interesting but puzzling. Why would a MAGA die-hard DA appointed by the Trump administration care about the potential for unethical influence of pharmaceutical companies on scientific journals? One of the core agreements between Trumpism and it's followers is that corruption is an unavoidable consequence of doing business. There's a long and growing list of deals between Trump and the rest of the world that unambiguously put money into Trump's pocket as a consequence of his actions as President. For example, Vietnam wishes to reduce sanctions so it fast tracks a development deal with the Trump Organization. They also grant previously denied access to the country by Starlink. (Tossing Trump's primary financial backer a juicy bone.)

Given the transparent corruption in the Trump administration--at the expense of the rest of the American people--I find it hard to believe that a MAGA DA is going to take any action against corporate corruption for its own sake. Whereas, with the Trump administrations consistent drive to stifle free speech, both in his first term (the media is "the enemy of the people") and now dramatically so in his first 100 days of his second term, I think it's the censorship angle that aligns better with the facts.

[Daddyhill]

Another Trump 2.0 Mind Your Own Business violation, using his weaponized-for-lawfare DOJ (it's OK because, well, nothing he does is ever not OK, according to SCOTUS). This letter asks for much the same kind of information that Harvard was supposed to cough up (ftw!). The correct response would be, "Read our editorial guidelines, cheese dick."

[thesafesurfer]

Mr. Post loses credibility relying on statements like "The administration's war on science and scientific research." I expected better reasoned arguments to appear on the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For pity's sake, it does not require arguments to note meanings made glaringly obvious by clownish cabinet choices. Or, for that matter, by aggressive anti-science mass layoffs of government scientists. When you see both together . . . well, stop pretending.

[tkamenick]

" In what way is a United States without NIH grants a better country than one with NIH grants? Same for NSF grants, NOAA, the CDC, Office of Climate Research, the USGS, etc. Why the hostility? Why would anybody want to take them all down?"

Because taking money from everybody only to parcel it back out to somebody - with a cut off the top for administrative expenses - is highly wasteful? Because when politicians control the doling out of cash, they can extract concessions and conditions? Because it promotes fraud and grift? Because it promote bribery? Because just because something is GOOD doesn't mean the government should mandate it? Or make everybody pay for it? Because private enterprise is better at directing funds and endeavors towards progress?

And, by the way, this is coming from no fan of Trump and someone who thinks that despite all the problems with the modern pursuit of science, government is no position to make it any better. This letter is a horrible use of government authority.

[shawn_dude]

I recognize the solid libertarian argument you're making here. To point out just one issue I have with it, what evidence do you have to assume this? "...private enterprise is better at directing funds and endeavors towards progress."

Private enterprise doesn't like doing basic research. They don't see any value in building large colliders and doing research into unprofitable things like subatomic particles. They're happy to use the results of that research to build quantum computers, though. Business, especially American business, keeps to fairly short term profit goals as a consequence of the ways we track corporate value via stocks.

None of the negatives you ascribe to government-funded research are solved by corporate-funded research, either, once you substitute politicians for corporate bean counters.

I'll list once example of something government researched and built that corporations could have but didn't: the internet. One of the biggest engines for progress in our lifetime was entirely a government (DARPA) project that eschewed the standard corporate approach of manufacturing scarcity or lock-in in order to ensure maximum profit. Rather, the internet is open and largely "free" and ensures maximum resiliency. The constant struggle with the internet these days is to prevent corporations from dividing it up and locking it down to maximize profit over functionality--a fight that a large number of citizens care about. If "progress" is the goal and you believe private industry is better at it, the internet is a strong counter-example. If it wasn't for the government research, we might all still be using balkanized AOL-like services.

Having said all of that, your libertarian rationale is self-consistent and presents an interesting argument. We both agree that the DA's letter is a "horrible use of government authority." I'd go farther and say "abuse," myself.