Last weekend, I had a very interesting Twitter conversation with Dr Jen Gunter, author of a well-read EBM blog about issues in ob/gyn. And I have to say I was mighty chuffed too when she asked for my opinion about this journal: Issues in Law and Medicine. After doing some investigating and digging around, it appears that one of the co-publishers is aligned with the American Right To Life organisation. Both co-publishers, the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled (U.S.) and the Horatio R. Storer Foundation, do not have websites as far as I can tell (please inform me if you find anything). This seems iffy – what publisher doesn’t want to publicise their offerings? You have to access the journal to find contact information and access is only available if you are a member of a organisation that has a journal subscription or a subscription to a full text database that includes the journal. I looked up the journal today and discovered that the chief editor is someone with a divinity degree. The referees include people from pro-life institutions such as the Lindeboom Institute and Christian ethicists and as well as that, includes a referee who is also a author of an article in one of the latest issues. The journal states that it peer-reviewed but that doesn’t mean anything much these days. Journal article submissions seem to fall under general correspondence. Dr Jen asks: should an anti-choice journal be indexed by Medline? Everyone is biased in some degree – it is impossible not to be unbiased about everything. My first thought was that there shouldn’t be censorship. Having said that though, databases including Medline have to operate within its stated scope. If it falls with scope and the content isn’t covered well, then it should be included (this is part of the journal inclusion criteria). Libraries aim to present all views as fairly as possible. But if it is well-covered by more scholarly fair-reasoned content, poorer content should be removed. This is not the only problem with this journal though. In the latest issue, there is an article bringing up the non-issue of vaccines causign autism, resulting in a outraged PubMed Commons comment. A major part of the journal inclusion criteria is Quality of editorial work. This includes retraction where appropriate (that anti-vaxxer article is one that is up for retraction), opportunity for dissenting opinion and as part of good publisher business practice, conflict of interest disclosures and editorial independence. This journal does not publicise it’s ties with the Right to Lief organisation and only implies it’s pro-life stance (the credentials of it’s editors and referees). This isn’t the end of the matter either. As PubMed is accessible by the general public, care and consideration needs to be taken about what sort of information should be indexed. The NLM should take steps to ensure it is not used as a political tool and including anti-choice articles thinly disguised as scholarly discourse in Christian ethics is an ethical issue in itself.
As countries talk about climate change and ways of addressing accelerating climate instability in Paris this fortnight, it is appropriate and not only that, necessary as well, to discuss the environmental impact and sustainability of local and international library conferences. While it is very nice to travel to events (and I’ve done this numerous times, including two international trips year), it is too costly environmentally. I’ve been thinking about my travel and – well, I have to step up.
It is time now to figure out a way to have carbon neutral conferences. David Suzuki has put together a list of steps to take to ensure large events are low-carbon or carbon neutral. Some library conferences are including live-streaming and recording events so people can view later. Some library conferences include a virtual attendance registration package that allows you to attend remotely. But individuals can take steps too. Is it really necessary to attend the event, especially if it involves a long-haul flight? If it is, and it would be if you are presenting or facilitating, wouldn’t it be great if your registration included a carbon offset (compulsory!) donation that would be calculated according to how far you had to travel to attend? One conference I attended in Bilbao in Spain was held in a carbon-neutral conference centre. I was very impressed – recycling boxes everywhere, energy efficient lighting and air conditioning …
One of the joys of conference attending is the exhibition hall and the swag of bumpf to be had. This should be questionable. Wouldn’t it be better to put conference programs and promotional flyers on a carbon-neutral usb (yes, these exist)? Wouldn’t it be great if suppliers and vendors were low-carbon or carbon neutral? That would almost make conference swag guilt free!
I know that conferences are major revenue generating events for library associations, but more effort needs to be taken. This is especially important for health libraries seeing that climate change is a major health threat.
In 2001, a clinical trial participant at Johns Hopkins (JH) died as a result of inadequately researched safety information. Ellen Roche was a 24 year old lab assistant at the JH Asthma and Allergy Center and thought to enrol in the study in altruistic intent (as most clinical trial participants do). Immediately following Roche’s death, research funding was suspended and JH was left scrambling to address the controversy. Medical librarians in the US went into overdrive over the incident. It appeared that the lead researcher did a rudimentary search of the literature. He searched PubMed (Medline records from 1966 onwards were available in 2001 and in order to discover older records (hexamenthonium was used extensively in the 1950s) you would have to have searched print indexes), Google, Yahoo!, LookSmart and GoTo.com. Librarians and researchers said that the literature search was lazy and foolhardy. Not only were the researchers at fault, but the JH Institutional Review Board (IRB) was at fault also for not providing proper oversight. Librarians talked about literature search standards and what should constitute a reasonable search. JH have now included literature search standards in the IRB application form and many other IRBs across the US have too.
JH has well resourced libraries – why didn’t the researcher contact them to ask for assistance? Was this a failing of the library as well? The Welch Medical Library began liaison services in 2000 for a few departments (Asthma and Allergy and the IRB were not included). What does this mean for medical librarians now? Perhaps librarians could try and work closer with their research offices in providing some sort of literature search service – approving search strategies and advising researchers where they can be improved. It could be spun as part of the quality control process of clinical trial management. There also needs to be better reporting of adverse effects. Apparently in a hexamenthonium trial in the ’70s, adverse effects were not included. Adverse effects reporting is still a problem today and also a problem for librarians in searching for adverse effects literature due to inadequate indexing amongst others.
When I first read reports about the death of Ellen Roche and the swirl of commentary about it in the library e-list, it touched me, as it did others. As health professionals, we have a duty to get involved in research activities in order to prevent another incident like this happening again.
The hexamethonium asthma study and the death of a normal volunteer in research
Johns Hopkins’ Tragedy: Could Librarians Have Prevented a Death?