Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editorials

Reed Elsevier's arms trade

BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39153.580023.80 (Published 15 March 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:547

Rapid Response:

Reed Elsevier and the conflicts of interest of publishers

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.

Competing interests: No competing interests

25 March 2007
Colin D Butler
Senior Research Fellow
William Castleden, William Castleden, Gunnar Westberg, Solomon Benatar, Douglas Holdstock
Deakin University, Melbourne Australia 3125