Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud

Editor—I have followed the rapid responses to the report of the HealthWatch Award address by Peter Wilmshurst.¹,² Having worked with Wilmshurst (he was my registrar 30 years ago) I can confirm Beard-sell's opinion that he is not just a troublemaker but an unusually honest doctor who has his patients' best interests at heart.²

Syed says that local research committees should monitor experimental data, and Goodman and Hutchon say that the data should be available on the internet.² This may detect fraud in formal clinical trials, but it would not work well for other types of dishonesty. For example, Banerjee reported a falsely increased number of rats on which he experimented, as well as a falsely large number of senior colleagues associated with the research.³ Pearce falsely reported a successful outcome with an extrauterine pregnancy, but the case was fictitious. Neither experiment would usually be monitored by a local ethics committee, and data on the internet would not necessarily expose the fraud. Different types of dishonesty need different methods of control.

Wilmshurst suggested checks of publication honesty analogous to dope testing in athletes. This is a false analogy, because dope testing is comparatively simple. The athlete does or does not provide a sample, which does or does not show evidence of illegal drugs. An innocent athlete then has minimal interference with training or lifestyle. By comparison investigating dishonesty in medical research is difficult, disruptive, and fraught with the danger of devastating liability for libel damages.

The key to detection of dishonesty in this case is someone like Wilmshurst who has the courage to blow the whistle and persist until the matter has been properly investigated. That is why I am so pleased that HealthWatch has honoured him, in contrast to the vilification he has received from other quarters.