Dr George Lundberg was fired last week from his post as editor of JAMA (the journal of the American Medical Association) and editorial director of its 54 journals and electronic products. He was dismissed because he “fast tracked” the publication of an article indicating that American university students did not think that oral sex was real sex. This coincided with the impeachment trial of President Clinton.
The executive vice president of the American Medical Association, Dr Ratcliffe Anderson Jr, criticised Dr Lundberg’s speedy publication of an article entitled “Would you say you ‘had sex’ if…?” (JAMA 1999:281;275-7). The article was written by the former director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, June Machover Reinisch, and her colleague Stephanie Sanders. It was based on unpublished data gathered in a 1991 survey of 599 students at a large mid-Western university.
The article was not solicited and was submitted in September 1998. It was revised, passed the usual peer review, and was accepted by the journal in December. Journalists were alerted to the article on 13 January, a week before publication, by the journal’s regular press release. The embargo on publication until 20 January was broken by a US website, leading to a press conference at the American Medical Association’s Chicago headquarters on the morning of 15 January.
“The current public debate regarding whether oral sex constitutes having ‘had sex’ or sexual relations has suffered from a lack of empirical data on how Americans as a population define these terms,” the authors wrote. Their survey showed that 60% of students did not consider oral-genital sex to be real sex: “almost everyone agreed that penile-vaginal intercourse would qualify as having ‘had sex.’ ”
A statement from Dr Anderson explaining the firing of the editor said that Dr Lundberg had threatened the historic tradition and integrity of JAMA by “inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting [the American Medical Association] into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine.” He added that this was “unacceptable.” Dr Anderson apologised to readers, contributors, and others who felt that “JAMA has been misused in the midst of the most important Congressional debates of this century.” He said: “JAMA’s hard earned reputation is based on its editorial independence and integrity, and we intend to keep it that way.”
Medical editors and others from around the world have criticised the sacking of Dr Lundberg. Iain Chalmers, Director of the UK Cochrane Centre and member of JAMA’s editorial board said: “Dr Anderson’s action is outrageous and a slur not only on the integrity of Dr Lundberg but also on the integrity of all those, like me, who have accepted Dr Lundberg’s invitation to work with him for the benefit of JAMA. Dr Anderson has succeeded in making crystal clear to JAMA’s readers and contributors that the Journal does not have complete editorial independence. His action has put JAMA’s excellent reputation under the dark cloud of heavy handed censorship.”
Magne Nylenna, editor of the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, said: “This is a very sad event for editorial freedom in general and for medical journals worldwide in particular. The fight for integrity must go on… . I suggest that the global community of medical journal editors establish an award for editorial integrity and name it the George D Lundberg award.”
Dr Lundberg’s lawyer, William M Walsh, said: “Through its actions today, the AMA has inappropriately intruded into the historically inviolable ground of editorial independence in scientific journalism. (See p 210)