Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Health care and education: a business oriented profession !
- Amr Hassan El-Shalakany (16 March 2007)
-
Hatchet Job
- Christopher E Nancollas (17 March 2007)
-
BMJ, The Lancet and Reed Elsevier’s arms show business
- Xavier Bosch (18 March 2007)
-
Missing the Point
- Laurie R Davis (21 March 2007)
-
Encouraging the sale of arms is unacceptable
- Jack J Marsden (21 March 2007)
-
Re: competing interests and the"legitimate" defence industry
- Gayle L. Davies (24 March 2007)
-
Reed Elsevier and the conflicts of interest of publishers
- Colin D Butler, William Castleden, William Castleden, Gunnar Westberg, Solomon Benatar, Douglas Holdstock (25 March 2007)
-
Publishers' competing interests
- Trish Groves (26 March 2007)
-
Reed Elsevier
- John M Graham (26 March 2007)
-
Reed Elsevier's arms trade just tip of an ethical iceberg.
- David K Hillebrandt (5 April 2007)
-
Reed Elsevier selling on of arms fairs
- Celia Rutherford (27 July 2007)
|
|
|||
|
Amr Hassan El-Shalakany, Professor in Obstetrics & Gyecology Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital, Abbssia, Cairo, Egypt.
Send response to journal:
|
I read with interest the editorial of young & Godlee discussing the involvement of Reed Elsevier, the great health science publisher, in the promotion activities of global arms trade. The irony comes from leading profitable business in health publications and education at the same instance of promoting arms trade leading to the detriment of global human health and life. The issue is how far should health care provision and education be governed by the business oriented mandate ? it is an everlasting battle not only concerning th Elsevier matter but actually involves all partners in the provision of health care and education. Unbelievable profits from highly priced medications, instruments machines and health insurance services are not different. The whole issue is about how much ethics should govern the heath provision and education? Of course damaging people's lives and health should not be the way for making profits from health care and education provision Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christopher E Nancollas, GP Newnham GL14 1BE
Send response to journal:
|
You write "The BMJ has no wish to see the Lancet diminished." Well, you could have fooled me. Calling for contributors to boycott the Lancet will lead to its closure, which would almost certainly benefit the BMJ. Is there a hint of self interest dressed up as moral outrage in this article? The other thing is, does anyone believe that boycotting Reed Elsevier will make the slightest difference to the international arms trade? It is a sad fact of human existence that the sophistication of a society is often measured in its weaponry. The arms trade is loathsome but at least Reed Elsevier are conducting their business in plain view. It's when it goes underground that you need to worry. I ought to add that I think it would be better if they weren't involved, and I'm sure the board of the Lancet do too. But boycotting a journal which has no control over another part of its parent company is not the way to go about it. Chris Nancollas Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Xavier Bosch, Senior Specialist in Internal Medicine, Associate Professor of the University of Barcelona Hospital Clinic, Villarroel 170, 08036-Barcelona, Spain
Send response to journal:
|
I was shocked at BMJ decision to publish this Editorial. Regardless of whether it is elegant or not that a former Lancet editor is taking advantage of his current position as editor of the BMJ Group to call would -be authors to boycott The Lancet (as Young surely has a privileged knowledge of the situation), the BMJ, with its odd decision, does seem to have a conflict of interest. Impact factor considerations apart, the BMJ and The Lancet are two of the most popular and widely-read peer-reviewed general medical journals in the world and both compete to publish the best research. As Young and Godlee rightly point out, The Lancet editors and its international advisory board have already come out against Reed Elsevier’s arms show business (1). In such an Editorial, The Lancet stated that “On behalf of our readers and contributors, we respectfully ask Reed Elsevier to divest itself of all business interests that threaten human, and especially civilian, health and well-being”. Last, I wonder whether Young, while in The Lancet, was actively lobbying against Reed Elsevier’s behaviour with the same interest that he appears to have now. But I suspect that it may not be that easy to fiercely argue against your mighty owner. Dr Xavier Bosch Department of Internal Medicine Hospital Clínic University of Barcelona Spain E-mail: xavbosch@clinic.ub.es 1.Reed Elsevier and the arms trade. The Lancet 2005; 366:868. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Laurie R Davis, GP South Hermitage Surgery , South Hermitage, Shrewsbury sy3 7js
Send response to journal:
|
There is an assumption in the editorial that the "Arms Trade" is inherently Evil and no reputable company would want any association. Clearly there is an unsavoury and unethical aspect to the sale of weapons, but it seems to me that there is a legitimate trade as well .Few would doubt that there are benefits from various "peacekeeping" forces in the World, though obviously there are controversial invasions.Only the most naive would argue that our own democracy was not protected during the Cold War by our weaponry.We can pretend it is not happening and let other countries dominate the Arms Trade , but we will still buy weapons for our armies.If my son is to be sent to an area of conflict , I don't want him being armed with inferior weaponry because a non-combatant thought it unethical to seek the best technology.Presumably the same viewpoint would suggest that there should be no Armed Forces Medical Service as it is unethical to be associated with such activities. Unpalatable as it is , there will always be an arms trade and dissociating ourselves from it will merely remove any possibility of influencing control.Landmines would not disappear if Reed Elsevier stopped organising exhibitions. Competing interests: Ownership of Shares in Qinetic , a British Defence Comapny |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jack J Marsden, Medical Social Scientist Cardiff CF10 1EE
Send response to journal:
|
I was pleased to read the editorial by Young and Godlee which highlights the unacceptable position of the worlds largest science publishing company, Reed Elsevier, on the international sale of arms. Frankly, the more people who know about about this situation the better, as Reed Elsevier must not be allowed to continue to propogate violence in this way. The respondents to this editorial who say that boycotting Reed Elsevier journals, including The Lancet, will lead to the closure of The Lancet are wrong. The Lancet receives massive numbers of submissions each year, far more than it can publish, and the lack of one or two papers with high reprint values will not damage the journal. However, a clear demonstration to Reed Elsevier that their policy on arms is directly resulting in a loss of profit may tip the balance and encourage the company to stop encouraging the sale of arms. In this way, the BMJ editorial, and the boycott it calls for, will help The Lancet in its stance against Reed Elsevier on this issue. I also wonder if the few respondents who have criticised the BMJ editorial really have no conflict of interest to declare. Have they ever published in The Lancet, and do they intend to publish in that journal in the future? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gayle L. Davies, Law Librarian Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Send response to journal:
|
I too wonder at the interests of those who appear to have fallen for the line that Reed Elsevier is merely co-operating with and assisting the "legitimate" defence industry. I refer to the person who says that if his son were going to war, he would like to see him properly equipped - so would we all. Is he not aware that British and American soldiers in Iraq are NOT properly equipped? Is he not aware that the NHS hospitals to which British troops wounded in Iraq are sent are not equipped to deal with them? I was disgusted to read in the Guardian Weekly, of the youngest British soldier ever sent to Iraq, who now, at the ripe old age of 18, has a colostomy bag, and that he has been left lying in his own faeces because of short-staffing in the hospital. This is in Britain, the second-largest arms manufacturer in the world. Doesn't anybody twig that there is a discrepancy here - between a country that earns so much from arms manufacture and export, but which can't dredge up enough money to provide proper medical care for its own veterans. (AND, read the latest revelations about the Walter Reed veterans Hospital in the USA - same story). There is NO EXCUSE for this, and those who use "legitimate" defence industries as their fig-leaf, should get real AND/OR develop a conscience. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Colin D Butler, Senior Research Fellow Deakin University, Melbourne Australia 3125, William Castleden, William Castleden, Gunnar Westberg, Solomon Benatar, Douglas Holdstock
Send response to journal:
|
We welcome Young and Godlee's discussion of the important issue of Reed Elsevier's involvement in the global arms trade, although we find it somewhat optimistic. This is part of a gathering storm against this company, as shown by the letters page of the current issue of the Lancet. We live in a time when many public goods are being damaged or at risk, whether by the dominance of market forces and self-interest (as in the West) criminality (as in Russia), totalitarianism (as in China) or poverty and bad governance (as in many developing countries). We also live in a time where the future of a functioning global civilisation is at risk, whether from climate change, weapons of mass destruction, inequality and resentment, corruption or a toxic brew of all these elements. (1) Young and Godlee remind us that Richard Smith's hypothetical example of a publisher concealing a conflict of interest concerning tobacco is far from imaginary. (2) Elsewhere, Smith has argued that some journals are excessively close to pharmaceutical companies. (3) These examples (arms, tobacco and pharmaceuticals) highlight the wider issue that publishers should periodically declare their own conflicts of interest. It is increasingly recognised that authors should declare conflicts of interest, whether genuine or reasonably perceived as such. Such declarations are a welcome attempt to protect the public good of the scientific discourse. But we are unaware of any examples of publishers declaring such conflicts, or even of appeals for them to do so. We believe that Reed Elsevier has the potential to influence the editorial policies of a significant fraction of the global scientific literature. It is difficult to avoid concluding that Reed Elsevier accords equivalent moral status to the hosting of an arms fair, the organisation of its "ecosummit" (http://www.ecosummit2007.elsevier.com/) or to its publishing industry. We argue that the cultural forces which allow Reed Elsevier to justify its involvement in promoting arms trading on the grounds that this practice is currently legal (4) reflect a damaged public good, and are likely to influence the rest of its businesses. Even if we are wrong, we hold that this perception is reasonable and that, periodically, readers, contributors, reviewers, librarians and conference organisers and presenters should be reminded of this possibility, in order to draw their own informed opinion. Such transparency could paradoxically help to slow the decline in esteem for the Lancet which Smith and other call for. (5) Finally, Smith has asked “Are people not bothered or are they scared to speak up?” Unfortunately, speaking up, especially in a forum with a wide readership, is not that easy. For example, earlier versions of this article have been rejected, with little or no explanation, by three publishers to date. References 1. Butler CD. Inequality, global change and the sustainability of civilisation. Global Change and Human Health 2000;1(2):156-172. 2. Garne D, Watson M, Chapman S, Byrne F. Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry. The Lancet 2005;365:804-809. 3. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005;2(5):e138. 4. Cowden SJ. Reed Elsevier's reply [letter]. The Lancet 2005;366:889 -890. 5. Smith R. Reed-Elsevier’s hypocrisy in selling arms and health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006;100:1-2. Competing interests: The first author has received payment for publishing in the Lancet and is currently working on a solicited (unpaid) paper for the Lancet. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trish Groves, Deputy editor, BMJ BMA House, London WC1H 9JR
Send response to journal:
|
Thanks to Colin D Butler and colleagues for prompting me to point out that at least one publisher does openly declare competing interests: the BMJGroup. The competing interests of the Group's Board and Executive and those of the BMJ's editorial advisory board and editorial team are all stated clearly and openly at http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj/declaration-of-competing-interests Competing interests: I am deputy editor of the BMJ |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John M Graham, Consultant Otolaryngologist Royal National Throat Nose & Ear Hospital, London WC1X 8DA
Send response to journal:
|
I am surprised at the indignation expressed by some of your Correspondents. After all, this Trade is perfectly Respectable, with many Eminent Citizens, for example in the City of Bristol, gaining an honest and perfectly legal income from their endeavours, sometimes at significant personal risk. Mr Wilberforce and his Friends are doing a serious disservice to the Legitimate Economy of Great Britain in seeking the end of slave trafficking, and should be resisted by all Right Thinking People. We should certainly allow the Transatlantic slave trade to continue in its current perfectly lawful way. If we cease from Participation, we can be sure that Others will take advantage of our Countrymen's absence from Slaving and perform the same Business in a far less Reputable Fashion. John Graham PS for some reason this email's arrival was somewhat delayed after its original dispatch in 1806 Competing interests: The author is editor of Cochlear Implants International. Publisher John Wiley & Sons |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David K Hillebrandt, GP TheMedical Centre, Dobles Lane, Holsworthy, Devon, EX22 6JX
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, The selling of arms may be ethically dubious for a medical institution but surely the manufacture, development and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction is even more questionable when done by an organisation that purports to be part of a caring service offering Out of Hours General Practice cover for a whole county within the NHS? Kernow Urgent Care, which is part of Serco, offers out of hours cover for Cornwall under a PCT contract. Together with Lockheed Martin and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, Serco forms the company AWE Management Ltd which runs the trident nuclear warhead programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. Is this the first time in the UK that patients have had their medical care in the hands of a company responsible for maintaining weapons of mass destruction? Yours sincerely, Dr David Hillebrandt Ref: 1) http://www.serco.co.uk/markets/defence/index.asp 2) http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/the_company/index.html Both accessed 2200 27/3/07 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Celia Rutherford, Researcher Leeds, LS13 1RE
Send response to journal:
|
Just recently I became aware of Reed Elsevier’s association with arms fairs and their decision to stop organising them. With this decision it appears that the company’s involvement in that business has ceased. However, I think that organising fairs is only one element of involvement. A second element is helping other companies to organise fairs. Selling or passing on of fairs (and I understand Reed Elsevier intends to sell on the fairs) are ways of helping another company to organise fairs. In this way, Reed Elsevier will continue to be involved indirectly in every future fair held by the company it sells or passes the fairs on to. I think the way to cease involvement completely (and I am assuming this is what people have been campaigning for) is not to organise the fairs AND not to sell or pass them on. Another company may subsequently take up arms fairs but Reed Elsevier will not have been involved in this. In order to take the decision to stop organising the fairs, Reed Elsevier must have concluded that, on balance and for whatever reasons, it was in the company’s best interests not to be associated with arms fairs through organising them. Presumably, and for similar reasons, it could be in the company’s best interests not to be associated with future arms fairs through selling or passing them on. My own feeling is that it is no more comfortable to deal with a publisher who you know has sold on arms fairs than it is to deal with one who you know is currently organising them. Competing interests: None declared |
|||