RFK Jr.'s Journal Critique and the Perils of State-Controlled Knowledge
By Darrell Lee
The modern scientific enterprise, particularly in medicine, relies on research, peer review, and publication to disseminate knowledge, validate findings, and drive progress. Esteemed medical journals like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and JAMA have long served as critical venues for this process despite facing legitimate criticisms regarding industry influence and research biases. Recent declarations by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his capacity as US Secretary of Health and Human Services within the Trump administration, propose a radical disruption. His assertion that these leading journals are "corrupt" vessels of "pharmaceutical propaganda," coupled with a threat to prevent National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists from publishing in them and to establish government-run journals as preeminent, signals a misunderstanding of scientific publishing and poses a threat to scientific integrity and public health. While concerns about industry influence in medicine are valid and have been debated by respected figures within the medical community, Kennedy's wholesale dismissal and proposed state-run solution represent a dangerous overreach that could politicize science, stifle independent inquiry, and ultimately harm the people his department is sworn to protect.
During a recent podcast interview, Secretary Kennedy painted an extreme picture, claiming that "all the major institutions of our society have been captured by the [pharmaceutical] industry," specifically naming the FDA, CDC, NIH, and CMS as "sock puppets" of "big pharma." He extended this condemnation to major medical journals, stating, "We're probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, JAMA…New England Journal of Medicine…unless those journals change dramatically…we are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing in them, and we're going to create our own journals inhouse." These government journals, he asserted, would "become the preeminent journals, because if you get [NIH] funding, it is anointing you as a good, legitimate scientist."
Kennedy invoked former NEJM editor-in-chief Dr. Marcia Angell and current Lancet editor-in-chief Dr. Richard Horton to bolster his claims. He alleged Angell stated, "We are no longer a science journal, we are a vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda," and Horton similarly conceded, "We're no longer science journals, we're about promoting pharmaceutical products." An examination of the referenced works reveals a significant mischaracterization of their positions. Dr. Angell, in her 2009 New York Review of Books article "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption" and her book The Truth About the Drug Companies, did offer a scathing critique of the pharmaceutical industry's influence on medical research, practice, and education. She highlighted issues like biased clinical trial reporting, the co-opting of medical education, and the financial entanglement of academic medicine with industry. However, she did not declare the NEJM merely a "vessel for pharmaceutical propaganda." Her argument was a call for reform, transparency, and a decoupling of industry influence from medical science, aiming to restore greater integrity to research and journals, not to abandon them as inherently corrupt beyond redemption.
Similarly, Dr. Horton's 2015 Lancet comment piece, "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" expressed concern about the quality and reproducibility of some published research, stating, "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue," attributing this to factors like small sample sizes, invalid analyses, and conflicts of interest, including industry influence. While a self-critical assessment intended to provoke reform within science, it was not an admission that The Lancet or other journals had ceased to be science journals and were solely dedicated to promoting pharmaceutical products, as Kennedy portrayed. Angell and Horton acted within the valued tradition of scientific self-correction and institutional critique, pushing for higher standards; they were not advocating for state control over scientific information.
Kennedy's reference to The Lancet's retraction of a fraudulent 1998 article by Andrew Wakefield linking the MMR vaccine to autism and a later retraction of a COVID-19 study on hydroxychloroquine as evidence of journal corruption is also misleading. Retractions, while indicative of initial failures in the peer-review or editorial process (and in Wakefield's case, outright fraud by the author), are fundamentally acts of scientific self-correction. They demonstrate a commitment, however delayed, to the integrity of the scientific record. To frame these corrections as proof of pervasive corruption rather than evidence of a system attempting to rectify errors is a distortion. The ability of journals to retract flawed or fraudulent work is a feature, not a bug, of a self-critical scientific process. These journals also publish non-industry-funded research, important public health data, and studies essential to pharmaceutical products or industry practices. Their global impact factors and the volume of citations their articles receive attest to their continued, albeit imperfect, centrality in scientific communication.
The proposed solution, to restrict NIH scientists from publishing in established international journals and to create "in-house" government journals intended to become "preeminent", is loaded with perils for the scientific establishment. The cornerstone of scientific validation is rigorous, independent peer review. This process, where experts evaluate research manuscripts before publication, aims to ensure quality, validity, and originality. These international journals draw upon a global pool of reviewers, providing a breadth and depth of expertise that would be difficult for government-run journals to replicate without succumbing to political influence. Kennedy's assertion that NIH funding alone "anoints" a scientist as legitimate, thereby guaranteeing the preeminence of a journal publishing such work, misunderstands how scientific prestige is earned. Scientific prestige is derived from the publication in a journal with a rigorous peer review process, the impact and replicability of the research it publishes, and its standing within the international scientific community, not merely from its authors' affiliation or funding source.
History offers cautionary tales about state control over scientific publication. Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, where Trofim Lysenko's pseudoscientific agricultural theories gained official state backing, led to the suppression of legitimate genetic research, the persecution of dissenting scientists, and, ultimately, devastating famines. During the Nazi era, a movement known as "Aryan Physics" emerged. It rejected modern physics concepts developed by Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein and Max Born, labeling them as "Jewish physics." Proponents, such as Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, promoted ideologically driven physics based on supposed "Aryan" principles, emphasizing experimental work over theoretical constructs they deemed overly abstract or "Jewish." This had a detrimental effect on German physics. It led to the dismissal or emigration of many brilliant Jewish and politically dissenting scientists, hindering Germany's scientific progress in crucial areas of modern physics, which ironically had significant implications for their war efforts. The state actively supported this ideologically tainted science. While they are extreme examples, they illustrate the dangers of allowing political ideology or state power to dictate scientific truth and control its dissemination. Government-run journals would become platforms for politically favored research, suppressing findings inconvenient to the administration in power or promoting work that aligns with a specific agenda. This type of restriction would undermine the principles of scientific independence and objectivity.
Restricting US government scientists from publishing in leading international journals would isolate American science. Global collaboration and the rapid sharing of findings across borders are essential for scientific advancement, particularly in addressing global health challenges like pandemics, cancer, or Alzheimer's disease. The COVID-19 pandemic itself, despite its many challenges, saw an unprecedented global effort in research and data sharing, primarily facilitated by existing international journals and preprint servers. Forcing NIH-funded research into proprietary government channels would hinder this collaborative spirit, reduce the visibility and impact of American science on the world stage, and slow progress. Eventually, this will lead to a "brain drain" if top scientists' ability to engage with the broader international community is curtailed.
This essay does not deny the very real and persistent problems of industry influence in medical research. Dr. Angell and Dr. Horton have pointed out the potential for financial conflicts of interest to bias study design, data interpretation, and publication decisions. A significant percentage of clinical trials, particularly for new drugs, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry (estimates often range from 50% to 70% or more for certain phases or types of trials). This funding can lead to publication bias, where studies with positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative or inconclusive findings, skewing the evidence base. Issues like ghostwriting and the selective reporting of outcomes are also serious concerns.
However, the scientific and academic communities have been actively working to address these issues through various reforms. Journals now require authors to disclose all potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. Platforms like ClinicalTrials.gov promote transparency by requiring trials to be registered at inception, making it harder to suppress negative results. Journals continually refine their peer-review processes and editorial policies to detect bias and ensure rigor. Advocacy continues for increased public and non-profit research funding to counterbalance industry influence, particularly for comparative effectiveness research.
While ongoing and imperfect, these efforts represent the correct path to strengthening the integrity and independence of global scientific publishing. Kennedy's proposal for government-controlled journals and publication restrictions is a draconian measure that throws the baby out with the bathwater, risking far greater damage to scientific enterprise than the problems it purports to solve.
The context of Secretary Kennedy's broader public stances adds another layer of concern. His long-standing promotion of scientifically disproven theories, particularly regarding vaccines and their alleged link to autism, and his numerous unfounded claims about COVID-19, its treatments, and public health measures reveal a pattern of distrust towards mainstream scientific consensus and established medical institutions. For the nation's top health official to advocate for dismantling the established channels of scientific communication and replacing them with state-controlled alternatives based on mischaracterizing critiques made by Angell and Horton is deeply alarming. It threatens to institutionalize a brand of scientific skepticism that could have dire consequences for evidence-based policymaking and public health.
Medical research and publishing integrity face legitimate challenges from commercial influences and Drs. Angell and Horton play a vital role in pushing for necessary reforms and transparency. However, Secretary Kennedy's recent remarks distort these critiques, painting leading medical journals as irredeemably corrupt and proposing a solution, government control over scientific publication, that is antithetical to free inquiry and independent peer-review principles. Such a move would not elevate science but politicize it; it would not ensure truth but secure its suppression. It would not benefit public health but endanger it by isolating American research and eroding trust in the global scientific process. The health of millions relies on fostering a scientific environment that is open, self-critical, internationally collaborative, and shielded from political or commercial influence, not one dictated by the state. The path to more trustworthy science lies in strengthening, not dismantling, the core institutions of independent research and its global dissemination.
Darrell Lee is the founder and editor of The Long Views, he has written two science fiction novels exploring themes of technological influence, science and religion, historical patterns, and the future of society. His essays draw on these long-standing interests and apply a similar analytical lens to politics, literature, artistic, societal, and historical events. He splits his time between rural east Texas and Florida’s west coast, where he spends his days performing variable star photometry, dabbling in astrophotography, thinking, napping, fishing, and writing, not necessarily in that order.