In People magazine, or Time or maybe even Newsweek, yes. I would find it
amusing and probably relevant. In JAMA? I would regard JAMA as no more than a
political rag if that was as serious as they could get in science.
Your support for Dr. Lundberg is commendable, and your "reverence to freedom of
expression" is not in question.
But you must admit, personalities aside, fast-track publication of that study
at this time is a slap in the face of Congress, to mention only the most
obvious.
Then there's Ken Starr... now that's scarey!!!!!!!!!???????
Isn't it the editors role to make these considerations?
Dave Sackett wrote:
> thanks for the response.
>
> with respect, you didn't answer my question. i wasn't asking you about
> "inappropriateness" on the editor's part, but whether you would have fired
> george lundberg, with no prior discussion with the editorial board, if the
> study discovered that fellatio was regarded as degrading intercourse by
> the respondents.
>
> would you?
>
> can we keep the discussion public until you answer it?
>
> @@@@ marks my other responses
>
> cheers
> dls
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
> As an answer to your question -- yes, it would have been just as
> inappropriate to print an article at this time which stated that 100% of
> the students considered oral sex as "sex."
> ......
>
> ......
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
> If you owned the BMJ, would you expect the editor of it to take a stance
> on either side about whether your Prime Minister lied to a court of law or
> obstructed justice in a case that revolved around the definition of a
> sexual act just becuase a researcher had data that showed a group of
> college age students 8 years ago felt that the same acts he committed were
> or were not sex??
>
> @@@@ i have no prior expectations about what he would do (but am
> forwarding this note to the editor, richard smith, to see what he would
> say).
>
> if i thought he was daft to do it i would either:
> 1. ignore it (most likely in this case, since i think some of the stuff in
> the BMJ IS daft!)
> or if i was really incensed:
> 2. start some due-process of review, convey my concerns to the editorial
> board, have an open meeting with the BMJ editorial board, the journal
> staff, BMA staff, etc where he could defend himself, reach a decision
> (keep him on, don't renew his contract, give him notice [can't imagine
> locking him out and stopping his email account] and publish the whole
> affair in the journal, giving him right to reply.
> ......
>
> ......
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Andrew Thomas wrote:
> Why would the BMJ take a position on the issue that is so far outside of
> its expertise?? Would you agree that this data is closer to a suped-up
> Gallop poll than a scientifically or medically significant paper??
> @@@@ 1. JAMA did NOT take a position (no editorial) so this doesn't make
> sense (maybe that's part of your problem?).
> 2. relevant expertise here is survey research methods, and that's
> what peer review is about.
> 3. scientific and medical significance is in the mind of the
> editorial board and the reader, not the BMA or AMA.
> ......
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|