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.
The title for this piece is oddly misleading, and the issue seems to
have been demoted in the BMJ since April.
Yesterday while doing some research I turned up the following item
from BMJ 29 September 1990 (301;6753:626)
"US Congress slams NIH over scientific misconduct.
"Last year biomedical researchers were able to scuttle proposed
regulations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that would forbid
them from owning stock in companies profiting from their NIH supported
research. Now, citing 10 recent examples of alleged misconduct that it
says the NIH failed ot investigate or punish, a harshly critical
congressional committee is calling for "immediate" issuance of conflict of
interest rules by the NIH's parent organisation, the Public Health Service
(PHS).
"NIH currently ignores conflict of interest problems, while it
attempts to develop new regulations," says the House government operations
committee in a 74 page report "Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflicts of
Interest Hazardous to Our Health?""
Will governments and medical establishments let the next generation
down just as badly? You bet they will!
The weakness is in public safeguards not in the pharmaceutical industry
The title for this piece is oddly misleading, and the issue seems to
have been demoted in the BMJ since April.
Yesterday while doing some research I turned up the following item
from BMJ 29 September 1990 (301;6753:626)
"US Congress slams NIH over scientific misconduct.
"Last year biomedical researchers were able to scuttle proposed
regulations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that would forbid
them from owning stock in companies profiting from their NIH supported
research. Now, citing 10 recent examples of alleged misconduct that it
says the NIH failed ot investigate or punish, a harshly critical
congressional committee is calling for "immediate" issuance of conflict of
interest rules by the NIH's parent organisation, the Public Health Service
(PHS).
"NIH currently ignores conflict of interest problems, while it
attempts to develop new regulations," says the House government operations
committee in a 74 page report "Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflicts of
Interest Hazardous to Our Health?""
Will governments and medical establishments let the next generation
down just as badly? You bet they will!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests