Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This is a fascinating new definition of a conflict of interest Dr Coghill. Essentially what we are saying is that previous expression of a view constitutes a conflict of interest if that same view is later expressed. I will try to oscillate my views and ethical standards to avoid this in future.
Pervasive mistrust of our profession seems to be the rule rather than the exception, and I believe we need a rather better standard of debate.
"Conflict" of interest: Have previously written about the Gillberg affair [1,2,3].
Whether I agree or disagree with Blumsohn regarding the BMJ's
treatment of the "Gillberg affair" is unimportant. However I must question
Blumsohn's definition of "no competing interets". I believe that his own
experiences with research misconduct, which have prompted him to run a
blog entitled "Scientific Misconduct Blog, About all manner of corporate
pharmaceutical scientific misconduct. If you're not outraged, you're not
paying attention.", represent a significant competing interest and should,
in the interest of transparancy, have been made clear.
Competing interests:
Researcher in ADHD acquaintance of Christopher Gillberg. Has received research funding from industry.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
30 September 2007
David R Coghill
Senior Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD3 6HH
Re: Conflicts of Interest
This is a fascinating new definition of a conflict of interest Dr Coghill. Essentially what we are saying is that previous expression of a view constitutes a conflict of interest if that same view is later expressed. I will try to oscillate my views and ethical standards to avoid this in future.
Pervasive mistrust of our profession seems to be the rule rather than the exception, and I believe we need a rather better standard of debate.
"Conflict" of interest: Have previously written about the Gillberg affair [1,2,3].
References
1. http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/09/who-is-beast-merger-of-medical-journals.html
2. http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/07/intimidation-by-patient-advocacy-groups.html
3. http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/07/gillberg-affair-and-fall-of-scientific.html
Aubrey Blumsohn
Competing interests:
Fascinated observer
Competing interests: No competing interests