JAMA forcefully responded to the recent allegations of a small university professor going behind their back to mainstream media outlets.
As MedPage Today reports, JAMA sought to preempt any form of criticism, saying, “The person bringing the allegation will be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while the investigation is under way.”
I’m not sure how enforceable that is. Perhaps anyone criticizing JAMA shouldn’t expect their papers to be published in the journal. And they also should be prepared for a not-so-subtle call to their superiors, which is exactly what happened to whistle-blower Jonathan Leo.
Furthermore, they also called out the Wall Street Journal’s David Armstrong, in effect calling him a liar, for reporting that editor-in-chief Catherine DeAngelis called Leo a “nobody and a nothing.” Let’s see how Mr. Armstrong responds.
It’s a heavy-handed response, and shows how out-of-touch JAMA is with a world where information moves at blog and Twitter-speed. Dr. Leo based his assertions on information found via Google within the public domain, and not on any confidential sources. That JAMA thinks it can squelch this information while it conducts a months-long internal review is a naive worldview that is stuck in the 1990’s.
Indeed, internist Roy Poses calls the whole situation “saddening,” and adds that, “the journal’s leadership seems to have somehow lost their way. Instead of trying to constructively respond to criticism, they now seem intent on punishing the critics. I hope they find their compass soon, before an important medical institution really is irreparably damaged.”
JAMA should have apologized to Dr. Leo, and acknowledged their internal reviews had failed in this instance. 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, they chose to stonewall criticism, and have made a clear attempt to crush future dissent. That approach is doomed to fail, especially in the digital era of health literature where print media is on the slow road to extinction.
As hospitals have found out, transparency, along with an apology, is the best approach to take when mistakes are made. Medical journals would be wise to aim for that same standard.
Related posts:
- The American Medical Association investigates JAMA, should Catherine DeAngelis resign?
- JAMA crushes dissent and calls a critic a “nobody and a nothing”
- JAMA and drug ads
- Poll: Should doctors apologize after a medical error?
- Medical studies in the media
- Bullet versus hand
- P4P: You need bigger carrots
{ 11 comments }
Poses is the Man…
I think it couldn’t be said better than “transparency, along with an apology, is the best approach to take when mistakes are made.” It’s that way all throughout life, right?
I sincerely hope the powers that be find a way to mend fences, as such displays can accelerate the decline of an institution’s credibility.
It’s called a cover-up, Kevin. It’s exactly what I endured (at the hands of a small-town hospital in the 1990’s), and no one so much as cocked an eyebrow.
I saved a life (defying threats to do it) and got fired. The medical world snoozes. Dr. Leo wrote a paper and couldn’t get it published. The medical world is up in arms. Priorities seem way out of wack.
Here’s another thought: While good doctors are being trampled for playing by the rules (and trying to make our institutions do the same) . . . someone like “Octomom” can come along and do everything wrong . . . and be rewarded with a house, TV show, and free psycho-therapy from Dr. Phil.
Being dictatorial, threatening and blatantly, in-your-face retaliatory . . . especially towards “whistle-blowers” . . . is the modus operandi of institutions and “establishment” medicine in a situation like this.
What makes it worse is that is accepted practice. You’re not describing anything new.
It’s way past the time for the general public to wake up to the realities in medicine: Crushing dissent is the norm. Apologies are unheard of (I’m sorry, most hospitals have NOT “learned” this yet). And stone (white) walls are all these small gods and goddesses of medicine know how to build.
No, she should resign. Her replacement should apologize.
She has continued to destroy whatever credibility JAMA had. Clearly, only those who toady up to the editorial staff will be published, so why bother with anything that contradicts there dogma? And demonstrating that they’re FOS? How DARE they! DONT THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS JAMA?
Sorry, folks….Yet another example of why the AMA is out to lunch.
I have not subscribed to JAMA or NEJM for many years. They both lost their credibility a long time ago. Political/social agendas seem to be more important than science to these rags.
I’m amazed at the balls they have. They basically come out and admit they said they’d ban him from the journal. I almost can’t believe they’re this tone deaf – they must live in a little bubble world where everyone sucks up to anyone associated with the mighty JAMA. I strongly suspect this represents the end of DeAngelis’ tenure, because JAMA is now a laughingstock. Or at least more of one; along with Lancet and to a lesser extent BMJ and NEJM they’ve become so enamored with politicalized studies purporting to provide evidence for policies they approve of that a lot of my colleagues don’t take them seriously.
What’s all this “cover up” about an “investigation”? Leo stated that the investigator did not disclose his financial ties with Forest.
If there is any investigation, it should be on why is JAMA protecting the interest of this “investigator”?
JAMA will not win over this matter. The WSJ is “highly skilled” in dealing with financial matter.
I think you doctors will be “amused” by this picture of Catherine talking about “Financial Disclosure”.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/catherine_deangelis_and_jama.php
The more I “dig” up about Catherine, the more I find her at fault.
On this blog (dated July 20, 2006) Catherine said, “I suspect we are going to have a whole bunch of disclosures over the next few weeks because authors are going to see how dead serious we are…”
“JAMA’s new policy, effective in January, requires disclosures even before articles are accepted for publication.”
http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2006/07/jamas-catherine-deangelis-queen-of.html
Kevin –
You’re a nobody and a nothing.
Now stop blogging about me.
- Dr. Catherine DeAngelis
I got a free subscription to JAMA during my first through third years of medical school. I think that I stopped reading it after the second issue put more emphasis on its political goals than on research. What’s worse, many of its scientific articles are so esoteric that they’re unusable in practice. Since then, all JAMA issues go straight into the trash without being looked at.
Comments on this entry are closed.