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.
Thank you for this piece. The criticism of the involved scientists is justified and, inadequate. In fixing the problem to prevent future recurrences we need to understand that scientists come from the society and reflect it's values and aspirations. These individuals, I'm sure, did not start out with the intent of committing these offences. They just let themselves be coopted into the larger agenda of the companies. The grant money, associated travel, seats on advisory boards, are all important magnets for us. Somewhere down the line these professionals went rogue. At this juncture it was prudent for their colleagues and institutions to intervene. But our institutions have failed us in this. Rogue scientists have had a free run, because,either they're publishing and pulling in grant money or are, what can only be labelled as, charismatic.
Tobacco, sugar, marijuana, the list will continue. There will always be vested interests looking to promote their agenda. It is upto us to ensure scientific integrity. It's difficult for the individual many a times and that's why we've institutions and professional society's to keep a check on the individual.
Re: Coca-Cola’s work with academics was a “low point in history of public health”
Dear Editor,
Thank you for this piece. The criticism of the involved scientists is justified and, inadequate. In fixing the problem to prevent future recurrences we need to understand that scientists come from the society and reflect it's values and aspirations. These individuals, I'm sure, did not start out with the intent of committing these offences. They just let themselves be coopted into the larger agenda of the companies. The grant money, associated travel, seats on advisory boards, are all important magnets for us. Somewhere down the line these professionals went rogue. At this juncture it was prudent for their colleagues and institutions to intervene. But our institutions have failed us in this. Rogue scientists have had a free run, because,either they're publishing and pulling in grant money or are, what can only be labelled as, charismatic.
Tobacco, sugar, marijuana, the list will continue. There will always be vested interests looking to promote their agenda. It is upto us to ensure scientific integrity. It's difficult for the individual many a times and that's why we've institutions and professional society's to keep a check on the individual.
Competing interests: No competing interests