I have been a research scientist, a professor and research director for over 40 years. Among all the unscientific and unhealthy changes that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made or proposed, arguably his most egregious policy would be limiting federal scientific publishing to only government-sponsored journals, a proposal he advocated in May.
The negative impact on research quality and innovation would be devastating. Government control over scientific publishing would significantly compromise research quality by prioritizing political agendas over scientific objectivity. The quality of research would likely decline as studies that don’t align with government narratives might be sidelined, discouraging critical thinking and limiting research diversity.
Such control would stifle innovation by limiting the exchange of ideas and collaboration with international researchers.
Academic freedom, which is crucial for innovation, would be severely restricted. Studies show that improving academic freedom by one standard deviation can increase patent applications by 41% and forward citations by 29%.
The peer review process could be manipulated to favor research supporting governmental objectives rather than being based on scientific merit. Reviewers might be selected based on their alignment with government policies rather than their expertise, leading to decreased rigor in the review process.
There will be a loss of independent verification because the current independent peer review system, which serves as a crucial quality control mechanism, would be undermined. This could allow subpar research to be published, reducing the overall credibility of American scientific output.
Restricting publications to government-sponsored journals would significantly hinder international scientific collaboration. This isolation could limit American scientists’ ability to contribute to and benefit from international scientific advancements.
The international scientific community might become skeptical of research findings from American institutions if they’re perceived as politically influenced rather than scientifically driven. This could mirror historical examples like the Soviet Union, where government control over scientific publishing led to reduced international scientific cooperation.
The current scientific publishing ecosystem, which involves various stakeholders including private journals, universities and research institutions, would be severely disrupted. This could affect the financial sustainability of research institutions and universities that rely on diverse funding sources.
In medical research, government control could lead to prioritizing research that aligns with national health policies over potentially groundbreaking but controversial studies. This could slow down medical innovations and the development of treatments.
Environmental research could be particularly affected, with potential suppression of findings that don’t align with government policies. This could hamper efforts to address critical environmental challenges.
Limited knowledge sharing and reduced international collaboration could hinder the development of the technology sector. Due to restricted access to global research and development, innovation in technology might slow down.
The Soviet Union’s experience with government-controlled scientific publishing led to isolation from the global scientific community and restricted scientific advancement. Publication in foreign languages was prohibited, and publication abroad was restricted, limiting international scientific exchange. During the Stalin era, many fields of scientific research were banned or suppressed. Genetics research was heavily restricted under Trofim Lysenko’s influence. Cybernetics was condemned as “bourgeois pseudoscience.” Historical research had to align with the Communist Party’s official positions.
China’s experience shows how government control over scientific publishing can lead to scandals related to scientific misconduct and compromised research quality. Such control has historically affected the openness of scientific collaboration and hindered international knowledge sharing.
Eritrea and North Korea are identified as having the most severe censorship, which extends to scientific publishing. These countries maintain strict control over all information dissemination, including scientific research.
The Nazi regime imposed significant restrictions. It dismissed Einstein’s theory of relativity as “Jewish physics,” conducted campaigns to discredit specific scientific work and required scientific research to align with Nazi ideology.
Kennedy has accused scientific journals like The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine of being corrupt and controlled by pharmaceutical companies. Don’t be fooled by this false rhetoric. Kennedy’s and the Trump administration’s general intention is to control the direction of research in the United States. This will allow them to substantiate their agendas, such as the Trump administration’s anti-vaccine and anti-climate-change schemes.
A.J. Russo (dr.a.j.russo@gmail.com) is a retired biology professor from Mount St. Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and has also taught at Drew University and Hartwick College. He is the research director of the Mensah Medical Research Institute in Warrenville, Illinois.