Patient Advocacy Group Calls For Suspension Of JAMA Editors, Investigation

As I first reported two weeks ago, the editor in chief of JAMA, Catherine DeAngelis, basically engaged in thug tactics in going after Jonathan Leo, a neuroanatomy prof at Lincoln Memorial University, who had brought an unreported conflict of interest in a journal article to JAMA's attention. DeAngelis and another editor went batty on Leo and the whole thing made its way to the Wall Street Journal's Health blog. DeAngelis reportedly called Leo a "nobody and a nothing" to the Journal's reporter, but she later claimed in JAMA that the WSJ lied.

Now, the Alliance for Human Research Protection is calling for the AMA's board of directors to suspend the two editors, and more:

"We are deeply concerned about the unbecoming and unethical conduct of the Editor-in-chief and Executive Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, who were reported to have used unprofessional and intimidating tactics against a conscientious academic, Dr. Jonathan Leo. Their behavior undermines the integrity of the JAMA peer review process, first, by failing to properly vet a manuscript for the accuracy of scientific reporting and for author conflict of interest and bias and, second, by launching an ad hominem attack on the scientist who was attempting to correct the record...."

"Accordingly, the Alliance for Human Research Protection calls for a public apology to Dr. Jonathan Leo by the American Medical Association, the immediate suspension from duty of the two editors involved in this matter, a thorough investigation by the AMA board of directors, and a commitment to reviewing, clarifying and publishing JAMA's editorial policies to protect against future violations of standards for professional conduct."

This is the tastiest little contretemps in ages, but it's also quite serious that DeAngelis went after Leo in such a fashion. It'll be interesting and very telling to see how the AMA's board responds to AHRP's letter.

Separately, The Economist now has an account of this lovely square dance and opines, in part:

"The JAMA editorial explains that the new policy arises from a desire to 'ensure a fair process of investigation and above all, to protect the integrity of science and the reputation of JAMA.' The first two goals are laudable, but the rule of silence seems designed with the third, rather more self-serving, goal in mind. If JAMA is not careful how it implements its new policy, that may yet work against the first two goals."

What with the attention the JAMA editors have stirred up with their sophomoric behavior, you have to wonder how the board will address this.