Donald Trump’s NIH Pick Just Launched a Controversial Scientific Journal
Karl Bergstrom, theoretical and evolutionary biologist, believes that the magazine is part of the constant efforts to eliminate the established scientific consensus. “If you can create the illusion that there is no predominance of opinions that says that vaccines and masks are effective ways to control the pandemic, then you can undermine this concept of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, and you can push a specific agenda in advance”, he says. According to him, the reviewed documents can ensure covering politicians who want to make certain decisions, and they can also be used in court.
On Thursday, when he reached the phone, Kulldorf said that Bhattacharya and Makari were sent to the editorial commission before their nominations by President Trump. “Right now they are not active members of the board of directors,” he said. (The journal’s web is listed by Bhattacharya and Makari as “On vacation.”) He added that “there is no connection between the magazine and the administration of Trump”.
Kulldorf told Wared that the magazine will become a place for open discourse and academic freedom. “I think that it is important that scientists can publish what they consider to be important science, and then it should be open for discussion, instead of preventing the publication of people,” says Kulldorff.
Kulldorf and Andrew Number, an epidemiologist from the University of California in Irwin, who was a supporter of the theory of leakage of the Laboratory of origin of Kovid, are called the chief editors of the magazine. Scott Atlas, whom Trump was involved in the operational group of the White House Coronavirus in 2020, was also called a member of the editorial board. Atlas, a radiologist for training, made false statements that masks do not work to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
In January, Noymer wrote a nomination in support of Bhattachaya for the NIH administrator. In it, he praised Bhattacharya for his open shooting with different points of view. This OP-Ed was published in RealClearpolitics.
Angela Rasmussen, an American virologist and researcher at the University of Saskachevan, says that she is worried that the magazine can be used to support and legalize pseudo -scientific and anti -public views on health. “I do not think that this will give them some kind of loan with real scientists. But the public may not know the difference between the journal of the Academy of Public Health and the Medical Journal of New England, ”she says.
Taylor Dotson, a professor at the Institute of Mining and Technology in New Mexico, who studies the intersection of science and politics, says that there is “legitimate concern”, that the magazine can become a repository of evidence that support arguments pre -preceded by people in the administration. In the case of confirmation, Bhattacharya and Boss’s Makary can potentially become Robert F. Kennedy, the candidate from Trump, lead the Ministry of Health and Social Services, which is known for promoting a wide range of scientific beliefs interviewed, including the fact that there is a connection between Vaki . And autism, and this AIDS is not caused by HIV virus.
Dotson warns that there is a risk that the existence of magazines closely related to a certain political look may deepen the politicization of science. “The worst scenario is that you begin to have magazines for people who are as populist and anti-surveillance, and magazines for people who also read NPR and New York Times.”