Michael Jensen Is No Longer Editor of Obesity
Sometime between July 29 and August 27, Leanne Redman became Editor-in-Chief of Obesity, the official journal of the Obesity Society. We know this because the August issue (published July 29) lists Michael Jensen as editor. But the September issue (published August 27) lists Redman as editor.
A One-Sided Grievance
The only reason this came to our attention is a post by Jensen and Sally Satel, a physician and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. On the Sensible Medicine website, Jensen and Satel write about Jensen’s departure from the journal as “a cancellation and firing.” They wrote about a commentary they had wanted to publish in Obesity. Their commentary criticized a paper the journal had already accepted for publication in the journal after peer review. Jensen and Satel claim:
“Our commentary was scheduled to appear in the same issue as the ‘Gap’ study. It did not. Someone within the Obesity Society leadership cancelled its publication. As they told Dr. Jensen, our co-authored commentary, coming as it did in combination with his earlier handling of a TOS-sponsored, pro-DEI position paper (that was withdrawn for publication), was sufficient evidence of his disinclination to support what he interpreted as the progressive values of TOS leadership to warrant firing.”
To our knowledge, their post is the only public information available regarding this transition.
Jensen’s post on the Sensible Medicine website seems like an ungraceful parting gesture. Throwing “DEI” into the mix is not helpful. Nor is the airing of a one-sided grievance. It is disappointing to see this unfold.
Click here for the post by Jensen and Satel.
Printing Press, D&J Greig, Edinburgh, photograph by Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.
October 10, 2025
October 10, 2025 at 12:26 pm, Richard Atkinson said:
I thought this was going to be a defense of Michael Jensen for standing up for science over bias, but the last sentence suggests that Jensen did something wrong. In my opinion, the Commentary, written by Jensen and Satel, is right on. As they say, the facts in the paper are clear, the interpretation is nonsense. There are far too many uncontrolled and unidentified factors that may account for the facts to draw the conclusions that Kong, et al did. The criticism that, “Jensen’s commentary seems like an ungraceful parting gesture.” seems to me unwarranted. The Commentary does not mention DEI. The Sensible Medicine column was written by Satel and Jensen, and it appears that Satel wrote the comment about DEI. Reading the Satel-Jensen document closely, it is clear that DEI was brought up by the TOS leadership as a factor in Jensen’s firing because, again, he valued science over political bias. TOS and the Obesity Journal have no business getting involved in what is extremely divisive political topics. Both TOS and Obesity are supposed to be about science and objectivity. When what are apparently political philosophies enter into decisions and actions by either institution, science suffers. In this discussion I believe Jensen and Patel are on the side of the angels (science), and the criticism in ConscienHealth is not justified and is a mistake to get involved like this.
October 10, 2025 at 2:30 pm, Ted said:
The only implicit criticism in this post is that the post by Jensen and Satel seems like an ungraceful parting gesture. They did indeed raise the subject of DEI in their post on the Sensible Medicine website. I will also note that, because we have only one side of this story, the only thing that is “clear” is what Jensen says TOS leadership told him privately. Frequently, recollections differ on difficult conversations.
I understand your view, Richard, and respect it. Perhaps there is more to this ungraceful parting than meets the eye.