Is this anyway for a medical journal to behave?

Reprinted in part from the The Chronicle of Higher Education:

'JAMA' Orders Whistle-Blowers to Blow Their Whistles in Private

The longstanding ethical principle of medical students and physicians — “First do no harm” — appears to be taking on a new meaning at one of the world’s top medical journals.

The Journal of the American Medical Association, in an editorial published on Friday, has warned that anyone raising a conflict-of-interest complaint about one of its authors should do so in private to the editors, without telling any outsiders.

JAMA’s warning stems from a case involving Jonathan Leo, an associate professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University, in Tennessee, who found problems in a study published in JAMA by a University of Iowa psychiatry professor, Robert G. Robinson, about the use of antidepressants in stroke patients. Dr. Robinson, according to Mr. Leo, also didn’t disclose a financial relationship with the maker of the drug involved in the study.

Mr. Leo reported his concerns to JAMA in October. Finally, this month, he publicly revealed his complaint in a letter published in the BMJ (formerly known as the British Medical Journal). One week later, JAMA published a correction and a letter from Dr. Robinson conceding he had in fact been paid by the drug company and had failed to report that.

In its editorial, JAMA affirmed the need to guard against conflicts of interest. Yet JAMA said that, in the future, anyone suspecting a conflict involving one of its authors should tell JAMA and “should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while the investigation is under way.” JAMA said it could be trusted to handle the matter fairly.

“A rush to judgment may spark heat and controversy,” it said, “but rarely sheds light or advances medical discourse.”

JAMA editors denied suggestions by Mr. Leo and his university dean that the journal had threatened to damage the reputation of the university over Mr. Leo’s decision to publicly reveal his allegation against Dr. Robinson. JAMA did not say, however, what it would do if a whistle-blower behaved similarly in the future, in violation of JAMA’s new policy. JAMA also did not say how long whistle-blowers should expect the journal to take to look into their complaints.

Full article plus comments can be found here.

News of Note this past week

~ Gender disparities persist in treatment of stroke. Guess which direction this one cuts.

~ TANSTAAFL: Pfizer to disclose payments to doctors, researchers starting in 2010. All right, let’s hear it!

~ Second Stryker sales rep pleads guilty to misbranding a medical device. A

felony.

~ Ovaries can be safely saved in some endometrial cancers.

~ 9 flawed genes found in risk of heart attack. Ah, the plot thickens!

~ Are you what you eat?: Mediterranean diet could cut risk of dementia. Quick! Get me some fish and olive oil.

~ Bone drugs may help fight breast cancer. Nice added benefit.

~ Damaged spinal cords in mice improved by transplants of neural stem cells produced with human induced pluripotent stem cells. We can rebuild them .

~ Are fears over bioterrorism stifling scientific research?

~ Naturally occurring brain protein may slow or stop the progress of

Alzheimer’s.

~ Gene therapy offers hope of cure for HIV: bone marrow transplant breakthrough.

~ GM goats raised to produce human breast milk. Just had to include this

story, in light of the one right below!

~ FDA approves drug made in milk of genetically altered goats. This is the first time such a drug has been approved. They also looked back at 7 generations of the goats to look for adverse effects on the animals.

~ Epilepsy group asking lawmakers to prohibit pharmacies from switching prescribed meds to generics amid reports of increased seizure incidence with generics over brand name epilepsy meds. Hmmm . . .thought generics were supposed to be bioequivalent. Seems that is not always the case!

~ Wacky names for newly discovered fruit fly genes. Examples? “Cheap Date,” “I’m not Dead Yet” (otherwise known as INDY). Who said scientists have no sense of humor?

[Thank you to Lisa von Biela, JD candidate, 2009, UMN, Editor of the BioBlurb, from which this content is partially taken and edited. BioBlurb is a weekly electronic publication of the American Bar Association's Committee on Biotechnology, Section of Science & Technology Law. Archived issues of the BioBlurb, as well as further information about the Committee on Biotechnology, are available here.]