Journal slapped for sloppiness

Last autumn, McGill epidemiology professor Lucien Abenhaim released results of a study linking the weight-loss drug Redux to a rare and potentially fatal lung condition. Abenhaim's work appeared in the august New England Journal of Medicine. It had a demonstrable impact--several newspapers covered the story and Redux's manufacturer changed the packaging of the drug to indicate the risks highlighted by Abenhaim's research.

The study also led two American scientists to write a guest editorial in the same NEJM issue--an editorial that has elicited some soul searching among medical researchers.

The Americans argued that, while Abenhaim's work merited attention, few Redux users were in jeopardy and the benefits of the drug for dangerously obese patients far outweighed the risks. A subsequent Wall Street Journal article revealed that the authors of the editorial worked as consultants to companies marketing Redux in Europe--a connection not mentioned in the NEJM piece.

In a letter to the British journal, The Lancet, cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst accuses the NEJM of sloppiness. Journals ought to take greater care in examining whether their contributors have financial ties to the companies they write about, argues Wilmshurst.

Meanwhile, this month's Scientific American reports on a study by Tufts University professor Sheldon Krimsky which examined 789 articles published in 14 prominent scientific and medical journals in 1992. According to Krimsky, one-third of the papers had at least one author with a financial interest in the research published.

"We're talking about a sizable number of articles," says Krimsky. "If journals are serious about financial disclosure, they will have to do more than they're doing."

Questioning the Red Cross Questionnaire

When the Red Cross arrived on campus last October for its annual McGill blood drive, the Student's Society's openly gay president Chris Carter decided to make a point. The Red Cross wouldn't accept blood donations from men who say they have had sexual relations with other men. Carter argued that this was a discriminatory policy because it targeted gay men instead of risky sexual behaviour (unprotected sexual intercourse).

He issued a press release indicating that he would try to donate blood at the drive to illustrate how gay men are prevented from taking part. Instead of telling Carter to take a hike as the SSMU president expected, the Red Cross took a hike--canceling the blood drive. "We cannot take any chances with people who say they are going to challenge the system," explained Red Cross official André Ménard.

Several students called on Carter to resign, arguing that his own activist inclinations were getting in the way of his duties as SSMU president, but the Red Cross came under fire as well. Some said the organization overreacted to Carter, while others reasoned Carter had a point when he accused the Red Cross of being homophobic.

Should the Red Cross change its ways? Students Brock Macdonald and Karen Hurley have organized a panel discussion to address that question which will take place this evening at 5:30 in the Moot Court Room of Chancellor Day Hall (3644 Peel). Panelists include School of Social Work director William Rowe, chair of the Advisory Committee for the Canadian Public Health Association AIDS Program, law professor Armand de Mestral, a director of the Canadian Red Cross and medical professor Dr. Blair Whittemore. Says Macdonald, "The level of debate is going to be extremely high."