The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced this week a new directive. It forces its scientists to get pre-approval from public affairs staff before they can publish any piece of research. This policy is intended to increase coordination before going out in front of media. Yet it has been met with fierce blowback from the scientific community and triggered widespread outcry over potential political meddling in research.
VA scientists have a robust history of leading medical breakthroughs. They were key to creating the nicotine patch, bettering the pacemaker, and devising the CT scan. The recent edict from Curt Cashour, the VA’s assistant secretary for public and intergovernmental affairs, along with senior adviser John Bartrum, has created an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding the publication of academic work.
That directive followed the release of a short opinion editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Those two VA Texas based pulmonologists were the co-authors of that influential VA article. In response to a recent article attacking President Joe Biden for overstepping his bounds by misapplying scientific evidence to his policy decisions. So it was that this ridiculous edict came out within hours of the release of WBEZ’s article, prompting many to question its timing and intent.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of health and human services, had previously contemplated barring government scientists from submitting work to top academic journals. This step has escalated concerns that research is being politicized at the VA.
“We have received emails and messages from other VAs across the country (including doctors, department chiefs, chief of medicines, and chief of staff) supporting our article,” – Pavan Ganapathiraju
Ganapathiraju, a VA scientist who played a leading role in the controversial publication, claimed that their article was completely within VA’s guidelines. They pointed out that at the time, zero issues with their work had been communicated from the VA—whether from their local VA or national offices.
Peter Kasperowicz, a VA official, strenuously defended the agency’s policy. He pointed out that it means that employees must first consult public affairs personnel before speaking to the press. He added, “Virtually every organization both inside and outside government has similar policies,” and stressed that this protocol has been in place for several years across both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Even with this defense, the damage has been done. Thousands of academics have widely condemned the new directive. Almost 2,000 prominent scientists, many of them Nobel laureates, put their names to an open letter. They blasted the decision as dangerous, cautioning that it opens the door to political meddling in scientific research. They contended that imposition of such restrictions on the work of scientists could undermine the credibility and integrity of science itself.
In reply to the ensuing outcry, Bartrum noted an increase in scholarly publications and media attention. He challenged the scientific community to enforce VA policy to the letter. He stated, “Please remind the field and academic community that they need to follow the VA policy.”
Critics of the directive have noted that it represents a chilling effect on critical discourse about veteran health issues. When Ganapathiraju and his co-authors published a recent article seriously raising those concerns, alarm bells rang. They spotlighted examples like canceled contracts, impending layoffs, and a scheduled firing of 80,000 workers from within the VA. By doing so, they’re signaling that these modifications threaten the well-being of millions of veterans who rely on these services.
Harold Kudler, a psychiatrist and researcher who previously led national mental health policy for the VA, described the rebuke of the pulmonologists’ article as “powerful in its impact and frightening in the threat it represents.” He was clear that while policy makers sometimes forget about patients, people never do.
In 2022, Congress took a big step forward by increasing the number of medical illnesses associated with their military service. This positive progress has laid an encouraging foundation for these recent advancements. This expansion further strains VA resources at a moment scientific inquiry seems ever more susceptible to political interference.
“But legislation doesn’t care for patients, people do,” – Pavan Ganapathiraju and Rebecca Traylor
Kasperowicz stood firmly behind the current policy, claiming it is critical for upholding integrity. Lastly, he made clear that this policy should not be seen as a move in a larger agenda against scientific inquiry.