Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 665–673

Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility

Original Research

Abstract

The 1988 publication of the report of the Cartwright Inquiry and acceptance of its recommendations by the New Zealand Government initiated comprehensive and internationally important reform of bioethics and patients’ rights. However, recent writing about the legacy of the inquiry has challenged the legitimacy of the inquiry and contributed to a climate questioning the value of the ethical reforms initiated by it. This article describes unsuccessful attempts to correct factual errors in one publication criticizing the inquiry. These attempts at correction raise ethical issues about the dissemination of the products of medical research—in particular, about the place of research subjects in post-publication ethical deliberations and the responsibility of universities and publishers in decision-making, especially in relation to the correction of error in academic publications.

Keywords

Cartwright inquiry Patients’ rights Legal protection of research subjects Research integrity Academic freedom Publication ethics Correcting misinformation National Women’s Hospital Linda Bryder 

References

  1. Anonymous. 1990. Actions on Cartwright are withdrawn. The Auckland Star, August 1, A2.Google Scholar
  2. Aschwanden, C. 2007. Seeking an international dialogue on research integrity. Cell 131(1): 9–11.Google Scholar
  3. Auckland District Law Society, Public Affairs Committee. 1990. Report of the public Affairs Committee of the Auckland District Law Society. Auckland: Auckland District Law Society.Google Scholar
  4. Auckland Women’s Health Council. 2014a. Update on enrolling unconscious patients in clinical trial. June newsletter, 6–7.Google Scholar
  5. Auckland Women’s Health Council. 2014b. The right to refuse becoming a research subject: When did we lose it? August newsletter, 2–3.Google Scholar
  6. Baird, M.A.H. 2009. Bryder’s book on National Women’s Hospital important work. New Zealand Doctor, September 23, 15.Google Scholar
  7. Broad, W.J., and N. Wade. 1982. Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  8. Brooke, B. 2009. The making of a controversy. In The Cartwright Papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 100–117. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bryder, L. 2009. A history of the “unfortunate experiment” at National Women’s Hospital. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bryder, L. 2010a. Women’s bodies and medical science: An inquiry into cervical cancer. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Bryder, L. 2010b. History within living memory. Public seminar presentation. The Centre for History in Public Health: School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, June, at the University of London in London, England.Google Scholar
  12. Bunkle, P. 2010. Patient-centred ethics, the Cartwright Inquiry and feminism: Identifying the central fallacy in Linda Bryder, A history of the “unfortunate experimentat National Women’s Hospital. Women’s Studies Journal 24(2): 8–24.Google Scholar
  13. Bunkle, P. 2012. Letter from Phillida Bunkle to the editors of The New Zealand Journal of History. Manuscript submitted for publication. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=253.
  14. Bunkle, P. 2013. Feminist input into the development of patient-centred health care in New Zealand. Women’s History Magazine 71(Spring): 12–22. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=252.
  15. Burrows, J. 2011. Review of The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by Joanna Manning. The New Zealand Journal of History 45(1): 119–23. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=253. Accessed June 1, 2015.
  16. Carrell, R.W. 2012. Trial by media. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 66(3): 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cartwright, S. 1988. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into allegations concerning the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital and into other related matters. Auckland: Government Printing Office. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=29. Accessed May 9, 2013.
  18. Coney, S. 2009a. The unfortunate history. In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 139–149. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  19. Coney, S. 2009b. Exposing the experiment: Could we do it now? In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 59–70. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  20. Coney, S., and Bunkle, P. 1987. An “unfortunate experiment” at National Women’s. Metro, June, 47–65. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=8. Accessed September 5, 2013.
  21. Coney, S., and Bunkle, P. 2010. Letter to Stuart N McCutcheon, vice chancellor, University of Auckland. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=31. Accessed September 5, 2013.
  22. Corbett, J. 1990a. Have you been burned at the stake yet? Metro, October, 156–165.Google Scholar
  23. Corbett, J. 1990b. Second thoughts on the “unfortunate experiment.” Metro, July, 5473.Google Scholar
  24. D’Angelo, J. 2012. Ethics in science: Ethical misconduct in scientific research. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Daley, C. 2012. MSS e-mail from the editors of The New Zealand Journal of History to Phillida Bunkle, January 24. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=253. Accessed September 5, 2013
  26. Geiringer, E. 1988. Trial in error. New Zealand Listener, November 26, 18–19, 44–46.Google Scholar
  27. Geiringer, E. 1990. The triumph of the victimocracy. Metro, November, 134–138Google Scholar
  28. Gotzsche, P. 2014. Deadly medicines and organized crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. London and New York: Radcliffe Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Green, G.H. 1964. Cervical carcinoma in situ: True cancer or non-invasive lesion? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 27(1): 13–22.Google Scholar
  30. Green, G.H. 1966a. The significance of cervical carcinoma in situ. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 6(1): 42–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green, G.H. 1966b. The significance of cervical carcinoma in situ. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 94(7): 1009–1022.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, G.H. 1969. Invasive potentiality of cervical carcinoma in situ. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 7(4): 157–69.Google Scholar
  33. Green, G.H. 1970. Cervical carcinoma in situ: An atypical viewpoint. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10(1): 41–48.Google Scholar
  34. Green, G.H., and J.W. Donovan. 1970. The natural history of cervical carcinoma in situ. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 77(1): 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greville, T. 2010. E-mail letter to Clare Matheson, July 7. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=31. Accessed September 5, 2009.
  36. Greville, T. 2011. Letter from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor by Timothy Greville, General Counsel, University of Auckland, to Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle 3 June 2011. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=31. Accessed September 5, 2013.
  37. Johnston, M. 2014. Drugs tested on critically ill, coma patients. The New Zealand Herald, May 14. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11254381.
  38. Jones, R. 2009. The 1984 article: The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 79–81. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, R., and M. McLean. 1986. Carcinoma in situ of the vulva: A review of 31 treated and five untreated cases. Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 68(4): 499–503.Google Scholar
  40. Lafollette, M.C. 1992. Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Los Angeles and Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. Manning, J., ed. 2009. The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  42. Matheson, C. 1989. Fate cries enough. Auckland: Septre New Zealand.Google Scholar
  43. Matheson, C. 2010a. Complaint re: Linda Bryder’s book. E-mail letter from Matheson, Clare, to Timothy Greville, Registrar, University of Auckland, June 2, 2010. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=31. Accessed March 20, 2014.
  44. Matheson, C. 2010b. In response to a letter from Ruth Taylor. E-mail letter to Timothy Greville, Registrar, University of Auckland, July 2, 2010. http://www.cartwrightinquiry.com/?page_id=31. Accessed May 9, 2013.
  45. McCredie, M.R., K.J. Sharples, C. Paul, et al. 2008. The natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncology 9(5): 425–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCredie, M.R., C. Paul, K.J. Sharples, et al. 2010. Consequences in women of participating in a study of the natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 50(4): 363–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGrath, J., and M. Scholtens. 1990. Application to strike out statement of claim: Outline of second respondent’s submissions heard on 21 August 1990 before Justice Barker. The High Court, Auckland. Mimeograph, Auckland: The High Court, Auckland.Google Scholar
  48. McIndoe, W.A., M.R. McLean, R.W. Jones, and P.R. Mullins. 1984. The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 64(4): 451–458.Google Scholar
  49. Morton, J. 2014. Coma patient mum angry daughter put on stop. The New Zealand Herald, May 15. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11255023.
  50. Overton, G.H. 2010. The 1987 National Women’s Hospital (NWH) “unfortunate experiment”: Accusations of unethical experiments and undertreatment, resulting in excess deaths from cervical cancer: Facts and falsehoods. The New Zealand Medical Journal 123(1319): 101–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Paterson, R. 2010. The Cartwright legacy: Shifting the focus of attention from the doctor to the patients. The New Zealand Medical Journal 123(1319): 6–10.Google Scholar
  52. Paul, C. 2009a. Medicine in context. In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 118–138. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  53. Paul, C. 2009b. The cervical cancer study. In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, edited by J. Manning, 89–98. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  54. Petersdorf, R.G. 1986. Fraud, irresponsible authorship, and their causes: The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science. Annals of Internal Medicine 104(2): 252–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skegg, D. 2009. Foreword: The Cartwright Inquiry and its legacy. In The Cartwright papers: Essays on the cervical cancer inquiry 1987–88, ed. J. Manning, 7–12. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, V. 1990a. Letter to the editor. The Auckland Star, August 8, A10.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, V. 1990b. Letter to the editor. Metro, October, 16–17.Google Scholar
  58. Sunday Star Times. 2014. Drugs tested on mentally disabled. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10261601/Drugs-tested-on-mentally-disabled. Accessed August 5, 2014.

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s College, LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations