JAMA Editors Accuse Wall Street Journal Of Lying About JAMA Editor's Quotes In Conflict Of Interest Case

I feel the need for a deep sigh before writing this: on Friday JAMA published online an editorial laying out the journal's version of events surrounding a recent unreported conflict of interest connected to a JAMA-published paper on Lexapro, a correction published in the journal and coverage of the matter by the Wall Street Journal's Health blog. The editorial was written by Catherine DeAngelis and Phil Fontanarosa, the editor in chief and executive deputy editor of the journal and it marks a rather ill-considered attempt to cover their respective butts and kick Leo around for allegedly violating confidentiality of the journal's review process.

In it, the pair lash into Jonathan Leo, a neuroanatomy professor at Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee, who brought the unreported conflict of interest to the journal's attention last fall and, then, wrote about it earlier this month on the BMJ's website. You read about the background here. Soon after the WSJ's David Armstrong wrote a piece on the paper's website, detailing the original study and unreported conflict and quoted DeAngelis as calling Leo "a nothing and a nobody." This all caused quit a stir in medical publishing circles--enough that several dozen people from the AMA read my writing on the matter.

Here's what the editorial authors say about the WSJ:

"One of us (C.D.) was erroneously reported to have referred to Leo as 'a nothing and a nobody.' As a faculty member (assistant dean of students) of a school preparing physicians who will care for patients, Leo certainly is 'somebody doing something' very important. To characterize Leo any other way would be erroneous and disrespectful, and this was never done by the editor in chief of JAMA."

So DeAngelis is accusing the WSJ's reporter of making up quotes, which is tantamount to accusing him of lying. That's a huge accusation and one hopes DeAngelis has some kind of proof to back it up (or is she just relying upon her sterling reputation as a mighty medical doctor?), since us journalist sorts take quoting people accurately very seriously, especially on sensitive matters, and it's an attack on our reputation/s to suggest otherwise absent proof--particularly since reporters almost always take contemporaneous notes of interviews and/or make audio recordings of interviews. It'll be interesting to see what kind of response the paper offers.

Beyond that issue, instead of sharply criticizing the Lexapro study author who had received monies from the drug's maker (Forest Labs) but didn't report them in his NIMH-supported study, the JAMA editorial alleges that Leo committed an ethical breach for going to the BMJ in early March. Since the initial article wasn't Leo's what possible ethical contract could he have with the journal? Since the journal didn't ask him to keep his yap shut while it was investigating the allegation, what breach exists? None. The journal is also critical of Leo for informing the press (namely, the New York Times, the WSJ and me) about all of this, claiming that one and all need to stand-off and let the journal do its own "rigorous" investigation. Leo informed the journal of the conflict in mid-October 2008. It wasn't until the end of January 2009 that the journal had in hand a letter to the editor from the study author, 'fessing up to the unreported conflict. Instead of letting Leo know that the investigation was over and that he could wait for further news in the near future, the journal didn't contact him and instead let him operate under the impression that JAMA wasn't rooting out the conflict. It's the journal's fault that it didn't keep Leo in the loop, which it easily could've done and avoided this entire dust-up. But then I am a journalist and love me some dust-ups.

BTW, why is it that when doctors investigate something it's always cast as deeply time-consuming and "rigorous" even if the matter at issue takes about five minutes to figure out through a Google search? I know doctors feel a huge need to preserve the public's view of them as being god-like in all things and at all times, but the journal's claim that it takes so long to do what you and I can figure out in mere minutes is laughable.

What isn't laughable is that from here on out JAMA claims:

"The person bringing the allegation will be specifically informed that he/she should not reveal this information to third parties or the media while the investigation is under way...."

First, I doubt that the AMA can make that stick legally, although I'm sure DeAngelis can try and intimidate doctors into complying. But what if an issue is brought to its attention by a member of the general public or the media? There's no way JAMA and the AMA could impose a gag order on them. Second, the journal is now setting a policy that gives researchers who publish in its pages greater protections than cops being investigated for excessive use of force. Why is it that the medical profession--and the AMA in particular--is always so protective of its members even where they've committed substantial breaches of trust with other doctors and member of the public who rely upon them for accurate and unbiased science?

You've got to wonder.