a response from a member of JAMA's Editorial Board
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof David L. Sackett Email: [log in to unmask]
Director, Phone: +44-(0)1865-221320
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Fax: +44-(0)1865-222901
Level 5, John Radcliffe Hospital WWW: http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/
Oxford OX3 9DU
England
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:30:49 -0000
From: Iain Chalmers <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "sackett david (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Change in Leadership at JAMA
Dear Dr Thomas,
I have read your comments sent to Professor Sackett. As a member of the
JAMA editorial board, I received a message on Saturday from Mr Kennett,
Vice President Publishing at the AMA. I am attaching my response. In view
of the fact that AMA officials are telling the world that publication of
the 20 January article is only the latest in a series of editorial
misjudgements by Dr Lundberg, I rely on you to play your part as a Board
Member in ensuring that the AMA publishes in JAMA the evidence on which the
Association has based the slur on Dr Lundberg and those of us who have
chosen to work with him. I am copying this message to Dr Lundberg as well
as to Professor Sackett, who is at liberty to post it on the e-mail
discussion list which he moderates.
Yours sincerely, Iain Chalmers
-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Chalmers [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 6:30 PM
To: 'Erma Long'; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Cc: rennie drummond (E-mail); davey-smith george (E-mail); banta david
(E-mail); [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; smith
richard (E-mail); horton richard (E-mail); 'davidoff frank (e-mail)'
Subject: RE: Change in Leadership at JAMA
Mr Kennett
Your message reaches me more than a week after a journalist at the New York
Times informed me that your Association, acting through the Executive
Vice-President (Dr Anderson), had sacked Dr Lundberg. You suggest that "Dr
Anderson's decision was not based upon this single event", a view also
promulgated on the AMA's website by the AMA President, Dr Dickey. She
states there that the decision "was reached after several months of
observation and was not based solely on any single circumstance", and goes
on to say that "Dr. Anderson has informed the Board that he would not
dismiss a subordinate for a single transgression, saying, 'this is not a
single mistake AMA' ".
These statements by AMA officers call into question not only Dr Lundberg's
judgement, but also the judgement of members of the editorial board and the
editorial staff who decided to work with him for the benefit of JAMA. In
view of the fact that that the Association has chosen to cast this slur so
widely, I challenge you and your colleagues in the Association to respond
to the forthcoming JAMA editorial on this affair by providing the Journal's
readers with the evidence that led to Dr Lundberg's sacking.
People throughout the world would no doubt agree with Dr Anderson that the
AMA is not "a single mistake" Association: on the contrary, the Association
appears to have the capacity to make the grossest mistakes repeatedly.
It is ironic that, in response to news of the AMA's sacking of Dr Lundberg,
two journal editors working in countries of the former Soviet Union have
commented that the AMA's action evokes vivid memories of the intrusion of
the communist party in the work of editors. AMA's totalitarian approach to
JAMA has revealed the Association's political colours very clearly.
Iain Chalmers
-----Original Message-----
From: Erma Long [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 8:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Change in Leadership at JAMA
The message below is sent to you on behalf of Robert L. Kennett, VP,
Publishing:
It is with deepest regret that I send the attached statement from E.
Ratcliffe
Anderson, Jr., MD regarding George D. Lundberg, MD, a friend and colleague.
Let me assure you that Dr. Anderson's action had nothing to do with
contents of
the article in question, or the right to publish the article in any of the
AMA
journals. It is about George's judgement to time the publication of the
article to coincide with the Senate trial of the president, which has
nothing
to do with science, medicine, or public health. Further, Dr Anderson's
decision
was not based upon this single event.
For your information, I'm attaching a copy of the press release covering
the
article.
Robert L. Kennett
VP, Publishing
###########
January 15, 1999
STATEMENT FOR RELEASE
Statement attributable to:
E. Ratcliffe Anderson, MD
Executive Vice President, AMA
Today I have appointed Richard M. Glass, MD, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD,
as
interim co-editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
They
replace George D. Lundberg, MD.
Dr. Lundberg, through his recent actions, has threatened the historic
tradition
and integrity of the Journal of the American Medical Association by
inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political
debate
that has nothing to do with science or medicine. This is unacceptable.
The AMA has a responsibility to the medical profession, our patients and to
the
country to ensure that the editorial decisions of the world's most trusted
medical journal are based on science and the highest standards of medical
journalism.
There is no question that over many of the past several years Dr. Lundberg
and
his fine staff - always working with complete editorial independence - have
advanced the stature of JAMA. Over time, however, I have lost confidence
and
trust in Dr. Lundberg's ability to preserve that high level of credibility
and
integrity.
On behalf of the AMA, we apologize to JAMA's readers, its contributors, and
to
any others who feel that JAMA has been misused in the midst of the most
important Congressional debate of this century. JAMA's hard-earned
reputation
is based on its editorial independence and integrity, and we intend to keep
it
that way.
###
For more information, call Linda Stepanich at 312-464-2410 or visit the AMA
Web
site at http://www.ama-assn.org
###########################
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 3 p.m. (CT) Tuesday, January 19, 1999
Media Advisory: To contact June Machover Reinisch, Ph.D., call
718/270-1447 or
718/270-1166.
60 Percent of Those Surveyed Do Not Define Oral Sex as Having "Had Sex"
Americans hold divergent views on what constitutes having "had sex"
CHICAGO-In a 1991 survey of college students, 60 percent of those asked
indicated they would not say they "had sex" with someone if the most
intimate
behavior engaged in was oral-genital contact, according to a report in the
January 20 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Stephanie A. Sanders, Ph.D. and June Machover Reinisch, Ph.D. of The Kinsey
Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana
University,
wrote an original report on a sex survey conducted in 1991 by The Kinsey
Institute.
These data indicate that prior to the current public discourse, a majority
of
college students attending a major Midwestern state university, most of
whom
identified themselves as politically moderate to conservative, with more
registered Republicans than Democrats, did not define oral sex as having
"had
sex."
Almost 600 undergraduate college students were asked this question in an
anonymous survey: "Would you say you 'had sex' with someone if the most
intimate behavior you engaged in was. ..." Many scenarios were paired with
this question -- anything from hand contact with genitals and oral contact
with
breasts or nipples, to oral-genital contact to penile-anal intercourse.
Nearly 100 percent of respondents considered penile-vaginal intercourse as
having "had sex." Approximately 85 percent indicated manual stimulation of
the
genitals (either given or received) would not constitute having "had sex."
The
authors report that sixty percent of students did not consider having had
oral-genital contact as having "had sex." Twenty percent indicated they
would
not count having had penile-anal intercourse as having "had sex."
The authors write: "The virtually universal endorsement of penile-vaginal
intercourse as having 'had sex' in contrast with the diverse opinions for
other
behaviors highlights the primacy of penile-vaginal intercourse in American
definitions of having 'had sex.'"
They authors indicate that the attitudes about penile-anal intercourse have
implications for sexual history taking and prevention education, given that
the
study was conducted during the era of widespread public information and
education campaigns regarding the association of risk of HIV infection and
unprotected anal intercourse.
Ninety-six percent of the students surveyed fell between the ages of 18 and
25
years old. The sample was 59 percent female/41 percent male. Matched to
university demographics, 92 percent were white, four percent were black,
and
four percent identified themselves as a race/ethnicity other than black or
white. Ninety-six percent identified themselves as heterosexual. When
queried
about their political position, 78.5 percent classified themselves as
moderate
to conservative
The authors write: "Recent public discourse regarding whether oral-genital
contact constitutes having 'had sex' highlights the importance of explicit
criteria in contrast with implicit assumptions in this area.
Unfortunately, a
review of the literature demonstrates that empirical exploration of what is
included in definitions of having 'had sex' for the general public in the
United States remains scant. Social and legal definitions of 'sex,' 'sex
act,'
'having sex with,' 'sexual relations,' and various crimes related to having
'had sex,' including adultery, rape, and statutory rape, vary depending on
the
source but often refer to sexual intercourse, which in turn is often
defined as
'coitus' or 'copulation.'"
(JAMA. 1999;281:275-277)
Editor's Note: The research on which this article is based was conducted
at
The Kinsey Institute during the directorship of Dr. Reinisch and supported
in
part by funds raised by Sherry Hackett and the Los Angeles Friends of The
Kinsey Institute, Los Angeles. Questionnaire development was based on work
funded in part by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md.
#
For more information: Contact the AMA's Scot Roskelley at 312/464-4431.
E-mail: [log in to unmask] http://www.jama.com
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
