The Conflict of Interest Claim Towards New AJOB Editorial Arrangement is not Sexist

The controversy surrounding the new editorial arrangement for the American Journal of Bioethics after Glenn McGee decided to step down in order to work full time as consultant for stem cell company CellTex (covered in former posts here, here and here) continues, now in the landscape of big science, in this news article in Nature.

In the article, new editor in chief, Summer Johnson McGee defends the decision of publisher Taylor & Francis to appoint her editor in chief against the criticism that this cements rather than resolves the conflict of interest created by Glenn McGee's move to industry:

Responding to questions from Nature, Summer Johnson McGee says that the journal has a conflict-of-interest policy that requires editors to withdraw from reviewing a manuscript if they perceive a conflict. She calls allegations that her appointment results from her relationship with her husband “baseless and sexist”.

Now, the firtst line of defense here has already been addressed by the critics, in particular by John Lantos, who resigned from the AJOB editorial board over this matter. And I happen to agree with John about how much of a wife-of-Ceasar-principle has to be applied in the case of defending the credibility of bioethics journals. Simply put: one of the well-known logics of conflicts of interests is that they tend to make you bad at spotting where the conflict is actualised in particular cases. Thus, the report c-o-i based on subjective perception principle is not by itself good enough. A broader margin of safety against suspicion is required to uphold the credibility of a leading ethics journal.

More interesting is Johnson McGee's second line of defense. The claim of "baselessness" is, of course a complete misnomer and question-begger. It is a fact that she and Glenn McGee are married and that, in virtue of that arrangement, vested interests of Glenn McGee are by default also such interests of Summer Johnson McGee. Therefore, I have argued, the conflict of interest is not resolved but rather sustained by switching from one to the other in the leading editorial management role of AJOB.

Now, this way of arguing is, Johnson McGee seems to hold, sexist. Well, Summer, allow me to retort that it is in fact this very line of defense of yours that is a case of sexism. The argument based on default economic relations between spouse holds regardless of the sex or gender of the people involved in this relationship. That is, my argument would have stuck just as much had the roles between you and Glenn been reversed (you being the one leaving the e-i-c position for industry, and Glenn taking up your managerial torch). What you seem to claim is that you should be let off the hook because you happen to be a woman. That, if anything, is a sexist line of argument.

If this is all there to say in defense of the new AJOB editorial arrangements, I would say that the state of things in the management of this journal appear to be even worse than what they appeared to be before. For I cannot convince myself that even Johnson McGee herself seriously believes in what she tries to sell through Nature. This, I would say is not the voice of conviction, but of desperation.

Call for papers: Ethical considerations in the use of anti-retrovirals for HIV prevention

My favourite journal in my field of specialisation, Bioethics, on whose editorial board I also serve, has a spinn-off journal called Developing World Bioethics, that announces a coming special issue of potential interest to many people. This is a cross-post from Udo Schuklenk's (editor of Bioethics as well as Developing World Bioethics) Ethx Blog:

Ethical considerations in the use of anti-retrovirals for HIV prevention

Call for Papers

Evidence-based approaches to reducing sexual transmission of HIV has remained a major challenge in responding to the HIV pandemic.  The past 18 months has witnessed a substantial shift in this landscape.  Controlled trials have demonstrated that the treatment of individuals with HIV infection reduces the risk of viral transmission to uninfected sexual partners (treatment as prevention).  Additional evidence suggests the possibility of providing anti-retroviral medications to uninfected individuals may reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection from sexual partners (PrEP— Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis).

In view of scarce resources, there will inevitably be a need to prioritize who will get anti-retroviral drugs; those who are sick, those who can transmit HIV, those at risk for acquiring HIV. Research that focuses on the balance between efficiency and equity will be involved.  Ethical frameworks for guiding decision-making at the clinical level as well as the macro social policy level will be essential.

Among the questions that will need to be discussed are:  

i.                    What rights claims can uninfected persons make for access to ARVs for prophylactic purposes when millions across the globe are dying from AIDS because they cannot access ARV treatment? 

ii.                   What moral claims can justify the provision of ARV therapy to those who do not yet clinically require treatment as a way of reducing the risks of HIV transmission?

iii.                  What normative issues are raised in making the determination that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of either PrEP or Treatment for Prevention? 

iv.                 How should the social and biological vulnerability of women to HIV infection inform discussion about the allocations of resources for either PrEP or treatment as prevention? 

v.                  If there is a risk that PrEP will increase the risk of drug resistance and compromise treatment options for those already infected, what ethical questions must be confronted? 

vi.                 What conceptions of procedural fairness and inclusiveness should shape decision making processes about these allocation decisions?

vii.                How should current research findings inform the ethics of trial design?

viii.               Given current evidence what moral issues involving the protection of research subjects should be considered in determining the extent of ancillary services and care that should be provided in prevention trials? 

This issue of Developing World Bioethics will be guest edited by Ronald Bayer (email: rb8@mail.cumc.columbia.edu) and Quarraisha Abdool Karim (email: abdoolq2@ukzn.ac.za), Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY  10032  USA.

Deadline for submissions: 31 July 2012

Press release from Taylor & Francis on the New AJOB Management

Relating to my two posts yesterday on the controversy surrounding this (here and here): Today, via Twitter and Facebook, a press release from the publisher of the American Journal of Bioethics, scientific publishing giant Taylor & Francis, on the journal's new managerial arrangements has been distributed. Anyone can get it from here.

In short, T & F simply announces the new arrangement: Summer Johnson McGee and David Magnus as the new editor in chief team and states that Glenn McGee is "retiring", while advising the transfer to the new arrangements over a 2 months period (which is perfectly in order). Unsurprisingly, there is no comment whatsoever of the criticism that the new arrangement has attracted. There is, however, an attempt at an explanation of why Summer Johnson McGee is to be EiC in spite of her sharing the conflict of interest that explains Glenn McGee's resignation (due to their marriage): David Magnus demanded this arrangement for accepting himself stepping in as EiC. This explanation was commented on by John Lantos in yesterday's post. In short: if this is indeed the reason for the new arrangements it is, in extension, a worrying sign of poor judgement and undue focus on practicalities over integrity of both Magnus and Taylor & Francis.

Now, I can see the reason for wanting Summer Johnson McGee to go on with AJOB: she has been working with the journal (and it's sibling website and blog) in an executive capacity for a long time and probably know all the ropes better than most others. However, such practical reasons weigh lightly when balanced against the credibility, integrity and reputation of AJOB and it's spin-off journals. Not to belittle the competence and experience of either Glenn McGee or Summer Johnson McGee or David Magnus (should his condition for accepting to be EiC be as firm as it sounds), but these are things that can be passed on to other people where no embarrassing conflict of interest ties staining the reputation of AJOB will exist.

So I land once again in the conlusion I announced yesterday: AJOB is a fantastic achievement. But in light of the carreer choice made by Glenn McGee, to remain fantatstic it needs to completely severe all ties (except, of course, the recognition as founder and former management) - direct as well as indirect - to him – which, as things stand, includes also Summer Johnson McGee. As indicated by John Lantos, it is both surprising and rather disturbing that this is not obvious to David Magnus and the representatives of Taylor & Francis.