Jewish World Review Sept. 5, 2003 / 8 Elul, 5763

Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak

The Medicine Men
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Unholy medicine


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | An old Yiddish (or is it Irish or Chinese?) joke tells of a man who comes home early one afternoon to discover his wife in bed and his next-door neighbor hiding in the closet. Enraged, he confronts the man: "What are you doing here?"

His neighbor shrugs and replies, "Everybody gotta be someplace."

We now know where the "prestigious" New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) can be found, at least on one issue. And while we applaud its honesty, we must point out that in the issue of human cloning, honesty without objectivity is not the best policy - for medicine or humanity.

In the July 17 issue of the NEJM, editor Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D., took issue with the House of Representatives' decision to ban research on and medical use of treatments "derived from embryonic stem cells." He then wrote:

"The editors of the Journal will do our part by seeking out highly meritorious manuscripts that describe research using embryonic stem cells."

Two weeks later, Wesley J. Smith, a fellow of Seattle's Discovery Institute, pointed out in National Review Online the downside of this honest advocacy. While everything the NEJM might publish on the subject could be entirely true, it would be far from the entire truth. What would happen, he wondered, "if the Journal received a manuscript reporting that an attempt to use embryonic stem-cell therapy in mice to treat, say, diabetes, had failed? Disclosing failures is as essential a part of the scientific process as touting successes. Or, what if a submission for publication indicated that embryonic stem cells' known propensity to cause tumors when injected into animals may be insoluble? What then?"

Smith's questions expose the dreadful problem of conflating objective science with political advocacy. They also demonstrate how "peer review" can be suborned to non-scientific agendas. But they also reveal two other problems rampant in the medical and scientific communities.

Donate to JWR

The first is Political Correctness. We've been writing for years that peer review as practiced by the editors of the NEJM often includes an ideological review to be certain that the manuscript agrees with its worldview or agenda. Public news media of all persuasions have similar policies. But they don't do science.

Politicized peer review is as wrong here and now as it was in Russia when Stalinist lackeys trashed Soviet genetics in favor of Lysenko's Good-Marxist notion that acquired traits can be inherited. More wrong. Lysenkoism failed as junk science. Stem-cell research and cloning are for real.

Nor is medical PC any new thing. For decades, elite medical journals have published articles perceived as favorable to one side in public issues - for example, in the areas of gun control, sex education and the psychological complications of abortion. Fortunately for real science, the truth about these human issues is slowly coming out.

Further, such huffing squanders other opportunities. For years, one of these writers pleaded with the NEJM to take a strong stand on the issues that really affected medicine, such as third-party control of physicians and interference by managed-care managers, trial lawyers and political powers - not to mention the hyper-regulation and paperwork that take precious time away from doctor-patient contact.

On those rare occasions when the Journal said something, it was always too little, too late and too Politically Correct. Heaven forbid it would hurt the feelings of the politicians and the legal scavengers, not to mention anybody with research money to distribute.

Second, there's the matter of snobbery. Most practicing physicians in this country are quite aware that unless a manuscript is from a "prestigious" Eastern or elite medical school and is consistent with the editors' worldview, there is little chance of being published. The NEJM has abused this editorial privilege filtering out medical science for years, just as the New York Times and CNN have filtered out the news. Rather than "All the News That's Fit to Print" these media giants disseminate "All the News That Fits."

But again, scientific and medical publications aren't mass media, and when PC snobbery joins with the hauteur of the scientist, it's doubly troublesome.

Why would editor Drazen suddenly take this one-sided stand on cloning, which entails far more than science? On Aug. 10, 2001, in an "Insight" commentary titled "Blood, Guts & Glory: The Stem of the Stem Cell Controversy we wrote, "Ultimately, it seems that the debate is not so much between science versus religion, but between conflicting religious, or if you prefer, "belief" systems that will never be reconciled."

But now Dr. Drazen portrays himself as a scientist and implies that his political judgment is more important than the judgment of either the Congress or his citizen peers. But his editorial, as Wesley Smith points out, owes less to science than to hope.

Drazen writes: "Although the science of creating genetically compatible tissues with the use of somatic-cell nuclear transfer is in its infancy, as a community of scholars, we know that this approach to treatment is now possible. Since the precedent has been set, there is no question but that somatic-cell nuclear transfer will be used to develop treatments for conditions that are currently uncurable."

This double supposition is not science. It's belief in things unseen scientifically - and grant-grabbing political rhetoric.

Fortunately, there is a simple way out. Accurate news and science reporting belong on different pages than editorializing. The editors of the NEJM can simply start behaving like the editors of local newspapers and other medical journals who publish reporting on the news pages and varied, informed opinions on the opinion pages. Also, the NEJM could establish a new policy whereby the editors who review manuscripts are independent from those who write the editorials.

Yes, everybody gotta be somewhere. But like the neighbor in the bedroom closet, how you get there also matters greatly.




Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple award winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and a Discovery Institute honorary fellow and board member. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists. Comment by clicking here.

Up

08/29/03: The California Tea Party and West Coast Determinism; Voter anger coming your way soon
08/18/03: The outlaw prosecutors: A Justice and Civil Liberties Issue
08/08/03: "Toxic Teeth?"
07/25/03: Resuscitating the Constitution; CPR American Style
07/25/03: Drug reimportation: Bill translates to goodnight, patients
07/11/03: Costly Medicare Changes, Without Real Reform
07/04/03: The Painful DEA II: War on legal drugs ensnares too many doctors and not enough dealers
06/20/03: The Medicare Mess: Will President Bush call Congress' Bluff?
06/13/03: Diagnosis: School Insanity: A suit for sanity and school discipline
06/05/03: Soaring Medical Costs: Rational ignorance or rational enlightenment?
05/30/03: A Tale of Two Admirable Women: Jessica and Annika
05/23/03: Latest medical innovation: Cash
05/09/03: We feel your pain; Physicians have it too no thanks to the DEA
05/02/03: Medical Quarterbacking
04/25/03: CNN the "Conscience-Not Network"
04/21/03: Medical Miranda?
04/11/03: Are childhood vaccines shots in the dark?
04/09/03: The PETA Principle -- The lambshank Redemption
03/28/03: American conscience?
03/21/03: West Wimps or Wings: Treatment for Hollywood Hypocrisy
03/13/03: Worldwide schmaltz shortage looms --- all because of a featherless chicken
03/06/03: Legal metastases are killing us
02/28/03: Outside the Jury Box: Seeking Justice rather than a Lottery in Medical Liability
02/21/03: Workforce temperature rising; employer TLC in demand
02/14/03: Malpractice Insurance: They Reap What They Sue
02/12/03: Hawk, Dove or Groundhog: Diagnosis Critical List; Prognosis Uncertain
02/07/03: How about tax cuts for the "rich" and "poor"?
01/31/03: AIDS Bug Chasers
01/24/03: Libertarian moment or movement?
01/17/03: It's not just 'sue the docs' anymore
01/03/03: A pox on the critics; diagnosis sour grapes
01/03/03: If protesting is good for your health; then at least let's root for the home team
12/20/02: Obesidemic (obesity epidemic) or not?
12/20/02: Time for voluntary informed smallpox vaccinations
12/13/02: The real reason the state opposes homeschooling?
12/06/02: Conscience of a former conservative: Portrait of a political metamorphosis
11/27/02: Thanksgiving dinner hazard?
11/22/02: Time to think outside the box and inside the nucleus
11/15/02: The military should be protected from abusive environmental laws in times of war
11/11/02: Does Kyoto Treaty pose more harm than global warming?
10/31/02: Deep thoughts on Baseball, the World Series and Life: How about them Anaheim Angels?
10/23/02: "Pediatric rule" guinea pigs
10/23/02: Once the World Series ends, we need to create a Donnie Moore Day of Remembrance: Sports and mental health
10/18/02: Congress to senior patients: Do as we say not as we do for ourselves
10/11/02: Using pollution "scare labeling" to political advantage
10/04/02: The Great Asbestos Heist: Did Litigation and Junk Medical Science Helped Bring Down the World Trade Center?
09/27/02: The imminent rise of civic feminism: A far healthier national alternative in war and peace
09/20/02: A Ray A Day" to replace the daily apple?
09/13/02: Beware of celebrities hawking drugs
09/06/02: Avoid 9/11 overdose: Give blood to begin "September of Service," SOS
08/28/02: From Doubleday to strikeday: Baseball's collective anxiety attack
08/23/02: Should she or shouldn't she?: An alternative view on treating menopause with HRT
08/16/02: Cooking up defenses against germ warfare
08/02/02: Medicine, crime and canines
07/26/02: Lies, pathologic lies and the Palestinians
07/19/02: Medicare Drug Follies as in "now you see it, now you don't"
07/12/02: Anti-Profiling: A New Medically False Belief System
07/08/02: Don't procrastinate, vaccinate!
06/28/02: The scientific advances on the safe and effective deployment of DDT are being ignored, or denied. Why?
06/21/02: Sex and the system: In seeking healthcare men are different from women
06/14/02: The FDA, drug companies and life-saving drugs: Who's the fox and who's the hen now?
06/07/02: Medical Privacy Lost: A hippo on the healthcare back!
05/24/02: To clean up America's game: A (soggy) ground rule
05/10/02: Free speech is good medicine
05/03/02: Medicine's Vietnam
04/26/02: Attack on alternative medicine could lead to alternative lawsuits
04/12/02: Insure the 'crazies'?
04/09/02: No Time for Litmus Tests: In War We Need a Surgeon General and NIH, CDC, and FDA Directors
04/02/02: The scoop on soot: A dirty rotten shame?
03/22/02: Too many beautiful minds to waste: The first annual Caduceus Movie
03/15/02: Terror and transformation: Defense essential for health & state of mind
03/08/02: Diagnosis: Delusional
03/06/02: The great matzah famine
03/01/02: Is new Hippocratic Oath hypocritical?
02/15/02: Why the recent moaning about cloning?
02/08/02: Searching for Dr. Strangelove
01/15/02: Score one for the value of human life
01/04/02: Medical-legal-financial wake-up call
12/28/01: Who's afraid of a 'dirty bomb'?
12/21/01: End of medicine?
12/14/01: More heroes: Docs deserve a little credit after 9/11
11/16/01: Do we need 'Super Smallpox Saturdays'?
11/09/01: Why the post-9-11 health care debate will never be the same
11/01/01: Common sense good for our mental health
10/26/01: Your right to medical privacy --- even in terror time
10/12/01: Failed immigration policy ultimately bad for nation's mental health: Enemy within leads to epidemic of jumpy nerves
09/28/01: Can legal leopards change their spots: A treat instead of a trick
09/21/01: Civil defense again a civic duty
08/30/01: Shut down this government CAFE
08/23/01: School Bells or Jail Cells?
08/15/01: Time to take coaches to the woodshed
08/10/01: Blood, Guts & Glory: The Stem of the Stem Cell controversy

© 2002