SCIENCE MATTERS by David Suzuki

Depending on your point of view, what's been going on at the Canadian Medical Association Journal -- Canada's leading medical journal -- is either a strange squabble between the academic elite and their bosses, or a tense drama about freedom of the press and the role that science plays in the media.
Sign me up for the latter.
It started in February when CMAJ's publisher abruptly fired two editors. The journal's editorial board promptly wrote a letter to the publisher requesting their reinstatement. In the meantime, an acting editor was hired, agreeing to take the position only if the publisher accepted a governance plan that would ensure editorial freedom for himself and his staff. The acting editor quit a week later. One can only guess why.
It turns out that the original editor, John Hoey, and the publisher, CMA Holdings, had been engaged in an increasingly public battle over editorial independence. In a January 3 editorial, Dr. Hoey wrote: "While the Dec. 6, 2005, issue was in preparation, the editorial independence of the journal was compromised when a CMA executive objected strenuously to a news article we were preparing on behind-the-counter access to emergency levonorgestrel (Plan B). The objection was made in response to a complaint from the Canadian Pharmacists Association, who had learned about the article when they were interviewed by our reporters. The CMA's objection was conveyed to CMAJ's editors, and to our publisher, who subsequently instructed us to withhold the article."
[Levonorgestrel is a progestin, so-named because it is the levorotatory form of norgestrel. It is used in combination with an estrogen as an oral contraceptive, or alone as an emergency contraceptive (in Plan B) and the treatment of menstrual disorders or endometriosis.] The publisher denied firing Dr. Hoey because of his actions. He wrote a letter, which was posted on the CMAJ website (www.cmaj.ca), wherein he stated that the journal was merely looking for a "fresh approach." Others say that the recent resignation of the acting editor is proof that Dr. Hoey was fired for insisting on editorial freedom.
It gets stranger. In response to the firings, an ad-hoc committee of the editorial board published a commentary entitled Editorial Autonomy of CMAJ, which included the committee's review of the events leading up to Dr. Hoey's firing. The committee concluded: "We view the episodes as raising serious concern about the integrity of the journal, its reputation and its viability in the community of top medical journals." This is posted on the journal's own website. Talk about dirty laundry!
On one hand, such a public airing of grievances could be said to be beneficial for maintaining the public's trust in important institutions, such as the CMAJ, because it lays all the cards on the table. On the other hand, publicizing internal squabbles could be make matters worse and decrease the public's trust in journals, research and science in general. One can only hope that something good comes out of this mess. It would be naive to think that the CMAJ's tension between management and editorial staff is an isolated incident. Indeed, with so much research funded by corporations that are motivated by profit, and journals increasingly relying on advertising, the issue of editorial independence becomes more and more pressing.
Editorial freedom for a science journal, as for all media, is essential. For science journals, this freedom must be especially transparent, as editorial interference could have profound repercussions. Based on information found on the CMAJ website, the publisher of the journal appears to have crossed the line on more than one occasion.
Let's hope that this is sorted out before the CMAJ is relegated to the backwaters of journal rankings. It deserves better. A warning published on the journal's website by the editorial committee says as much, although it is overly optimistic: "In our view, any attempt by the CMA to impose its influence on the editors would be catastrophic for the CMAJ's reputation as well as damaging to the reputation of the CMA."
It's a little late for that.
Join the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org

Join the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org