The water engulfing JAMA’s editor-in-chief Catherine DeAngelis is getting hotter.
A recap is here, but the Jonathan Leo flap, and subsequent response, is not going away as JAMA hoped it would.
The WSJ reports that AMA, which normally does not interfere in the editorial decisions of the journal, has asked its Journal Oversight Committee to look into the matter.
Over at Respectful Insulance, academic surgeon-blogger Orac has a pretty harsh critique on the proceedings. He writes that, “thuggish behavior such as that demonstrated by Catherine DeAngelis. coupled with her hypocrisy in bragging about how well JAMA polices its COI [conflict of interest] policy while leaning on an investigator who expressed legitimate concern about it is unacceptable. Worse, this appears to be a pattern of abusive behavior that risks completely undermining all the good she’s done in terms of pushing for more openness in reporting COIs.”
As I wrote before, an apology from both JAMA and Dr. DeAngelis would have stemmed the tide, and that, “like how hospitals have dealt with medical errors, they could have used this event to improve their conflict of interest policies, and make their reviews more transparent.”
Instead, their response was wholly inadequate, and only reinforced the misguided notion that JAMA was immune to criticism, and worse, sought to preempt any future dissent.
Is it too late for an apology? Maybe, but the longer this drags on, the stronger the calls will be for Dr. DeAngelis to resign.
Related posts:
- The JAMA versus Jonathan Leo debacle worsens, should Catherine DeAngelis apologize?
- JAMA crushes dissent and calls a critic a “nobody and a nothing”
- JAMA and drug ads
- Ghostwriting medical articles
- Can the American Medical Association still be an influential voice in health reform?
- American Heart Association vs pediatricians
- Do physician apologies make it less likely for patients to sue for medical malpractice?
{ 3 comments }
Irrespective of one’s views on the matter, one would think that a political critical mass has been reached, ergo, resignation.
Should that be the case, a return to leadership that embraces dialogue (and independent scientific inquiry) instead of quelling it would be welcomed.
The reaction (i.e. righteous outrage) to this from the medical blogosphere seems to me to be incredibly naive – and a little hollow.
DeAngelis's behavior demonstrates how the leadership & executives of most medical institutions NORMALLY react to criticism, dissent and change (especially in the non-profit sector). They've been crushing "nobodies" for years. Blatant, in-your-face conflicts of interests & monopolization of resources are something to be shrugged off amongst medicine's well-networked. "Thuggish" behavior . . . winking and nodding . . . is rewarded with promotions and bigger salaries.
This is the way it is. Where has everyone been? Now suddenly you-all want blood?
JAMA may ultimately sacrifice DeAngelis to the PR gods, but I can guarantee you they will do little else once the hoopla dies down. It's like the N.C. State Bar offering up Nifong's head on a platter after the Duke mess – then doing absolutely nothing else since to push true legal reform. It's all for show.
What amazes me is that this DeAngelis business got any airplay at all – when so many other things haven't.
I’m all for her resignation right now. If she actually said that to the WSJ, she’s not only unprofessional, she’s dumb.
Comments on this entry are closed.