An editor at one of the world’s most prestigious science journals has been slammed for pushing ‘woke’ views and helping her non-binary daughter financially benefit.
Debra Malina has worked at the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) for more than 20 years and currently edits the Perspective essay section.
But an increasing number of people in the scientific community have tired of the publication’s articles promoting gender affirming care and trans rights.
Now it has emerged that Malina’s daughter, who started identifying as non-binary in college, currently works as a therapist in Brooklyn, New York, with her specialties including trans and non-binary identities, queer identities, polyamory, kink, and BDSM.
Her fees exceed $350 per 50-minute session.
Dr Leor Sapir, who holds a Ph.D. in political science from Boston College and is an expert on medical policy, says researchers he has spoken to have ‘expressed concern about Malina’s conflict of interest, given her family situation’.
This, he says, in turn is helping to steer the editorial direction. In 2020, Sula published a piece in her mother’s Perspective section arguing that ‘clinicians and health care institutions’ must ‘confront their own transphobia.’
Meanwhile, researchers say their pieces with opposing views have been turned away. One researcher Dr Sapir spoke to, said their letter to the editor pointing out flaws in a pro-gender-affirming care Perspectives article was rejected.
In a piece for the City Journal , journalist Leor Sapir accuses New England Journal of Medicine editor Debra Malina of ‘editorial bias’
They then wrote to NEJM’s editorial board on February 2, 2023, suggesting that Malina should ‘recuse herself from publication decisions involving topics that implicate her daughter’s livelihood.’
But NEJM’s editor-in-chief, Eric Rubin, reportedly disagreed with the researcher’s claims.
His response, published in Dr Sapir’s opinion piece for the City Journal, reads: ‘We encourage authors and reviewers to be transparent about financial conflicts and largely prohibit editors from having financial conflicts.
‘However, all of our authors, reviewers and editors have opinions and biases (although I hope are willing to be proven wrong).
‘I do not consider pre-existing opinions without financial conflicts to be grounds for recusal whether for Perspectives or research articles.’
Puberty blockers were originally developed to suppress the hormones of minors who started puberty too early.
They are nowadays prescribed to a fast-growing number of trans children.
Advocates of gender-affirming care, as it is known, say it’s life-saving for a suicide-prone group, and that puberty blockers help pre-teens ‘pause’ their puberty and buy time to weigh life-altering decisions.
Critics warn of surging numbers of young people who identify as trans, and say puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries are often unnecessary and likely dangerous when counselling gets better results.
Since 2015, Dr Sapir says by his count, Perspective has published 26 articles supportive of ‘gender-affirming’ medicine.
He adds: ‘As far as I can tell, Perspective has not published a single article that is critical, or even skeptical, of the controversial practice.’
And it appears he is not alone with his concerns about the direction of the NEJM.
In 2021, Dr Colin Wright – who holds a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of California – penned a piece for Genetic Literacy Project titled ‘Viewpoint on sex and gender: Has the New England Journal abandoned science for woke political correctness?’
Instead of highlighting Malina as the prime cause for the journal’s woke stance, Wright refers to the editorial team as a whole.
In his piece, Dr Wright highlights a message the NEJM left on X supporting not assigning sex at birth.
The message read: ‘Sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people.
‘Moving such designations below the line of demarcation would not compromise the birth certificate’s public health function but could avoid harm.’
Debra Malina has worked at the New England Journal of Medicine for more than 20 years
Wright expressed distain towards the NEJM’s stance, writing in response: ‘The fact that editors at such a prestigious journal as NEJM have chosen to assign credence to these arguments leaves us no choice but to unpack them.’
In another piece published the same year in National Review, writer and academic Wesley Smith expressed his frustration around how the NEJM was training medical students to be ‘woke social activists.’
He said: ‘There the NEJM goes pushing woke agendas again.
‘This time, the extremely politically progressive medical journal has published an article urging that medical students be taught that left-wing social-justice engagement should be among their professional duties.’
Smith went on to accuse the journal of ‘repeatedly’ featuring articles that ‘cut adamantly against social-conservative values.’
DailyMail.com has reached out to the NEJM on this matter and is still awaiting comment.
