Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: We need whistleblowers

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230

BMJ 2004;328:230 (24 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230

Letter

Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud

We need whistleblowers

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—I have followed the rapid responses to the reportof the HealthWatch Award address by Peter Wilmshurst.^1
2 Havingworked with Wilmshurst (he was my registrar 30 years ago) Ican confirm Beard-sell's opinion that he is not just a troublemakerbut an unusually honest doctor who has his patients' best interestsat heart.²

Syed says that local research committees should monitor experimentaldata, and Goodman and Hutchon say that the data should be availableon the internet.² This may detect fraud in formal clinical trials,but it would not work well for other types of dishonesty. Forexample, Banerjee reported a falsely increased number of ratson which he experimented, as well as a falsely large numberof senior colleagues associated with the research.³ Pearce falselyreported a successful outcome with an extrauterine pregnancy,but the case was fictitious. Neither experiment would usuallybe monitored by a local . . . [Full text of this article]