Letters
A higher principle is at stake than simply freedom of speech
EDITOR,--John Roberts and Richard Smith suggest that the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology should reverse their recent ban on research sponsored by the tobacco industry.1 They suggest that if some studies are systematically suppressed then we will reach false conclusions: "Because peer review cannot guarantee the validity of a study and because bias operates very subtly, many journals, including this one, print authors' funding sources alongside papers. By doing so, the journals ensure that the ultimate peer reviewers, practising doctors, can use that information to make up their own minds on the validity and usefulness of a piece of research."1
Ideally speaking, these points have a lot in their favour. But imagine the (not unlikely) scenario after a ban on tobacco advertising throughout the developed world--not just, as now, in a few progressive countries like Norway, Finland,
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- Strategic plans for vascular services have not been put into effect
- C V Ruckley
BMJ 1996 313: 46.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
-
Adult intensive care
- Journalology
- Relevant Article
- Find this article in its weekly table of contents
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
