The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) has taken a bold stand against federal censorship impacting scientific research, especially following a string of executive orders from the Trump administration. This move came during a live interview on MedPage Today's Instagram channel, where Georges Benjamin, MD, publisher of AJPH, emphasized the organization's commitment to integrity and transparency in scientific publishing.
Georges Benjamin, also the executive director of the AJPH's parent entity, the American Public Health Association, articulated the journal's dedication to ethical and independent reporting. He stated, We at the American Journal of Public Health have no interest in following the president's prohibitions on language. This firm stance arises amidst issues where governmental directives have instructed scientists, particularly those affiliated with the CDC, to avoid certain forbidden terms, many of which pertain to gender equity.
Benjamin underscored that AJPH operates according to its rigorous peer-review process, independent of government-imposed restrictions. He noted, If someone sends us material that has not been censored, we will publish it. If they send us material that has been censored, it will be evaluated by peer review, and if it meets our standards, we will publish it. This approach may lead to fewer submissions from federal employees or researchers with federal grants, yet AJPH remains steadfast in their ethical principles.
In discussing the potential implications of self-censorship among researchers, Benjamin highlighted a significant issue: People are going to self-censor because they always do, and that's the real challenge here. He acknowledged the fear pervasive among scientists and researchers about retribution or career setbacks for speaking out or using certain language in their studies.
The conversation also touched upon the possible lack of contribution from CDC scientists, leading Benjamin to predict an underground publication process, where names may be omitted to protect those contributing. This results in the sacrifice of personal recognition for the greater goal of advancing academic knowledge without political interference.
Benjamin expressed concern over the broader implications of these restrictions, stating, For me, the problem is that people are afraid. He illustrated a climate where researchers fear repercussions over their funding, publications, or even signing protest letters. Such a scenario, Benjamin argued, should not be acceptable in the United States, a country known for its commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Through these revelations, AJPH reaffirms its role as a beacon of academic freedom, willing to take the necessary steps to ensure the pursuit of knowledge remains uncompromised by external pressures. This action highlights the broader issue of censorship in science, encouraging a broader conversation on the importance of maintaining the integrity of public health messaging and research.