Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Abortion, and Publication Bias in the .

UNLABELLED

Publication bias in medical journals depends on outside influences and the particular ideological bent of the editorial board. The () is a premier medical scientific publication having among the highest impact rankings of any research journal. The Vioxx question and industry ties it highlighted have led to legitimate questions of whether significant conflicts of interest have arisen within that compromise the free exchange of scientific information and ideas. Over the past two decades, several socially charged areas have been treated with considerable bias in the editorial policy of , including the issues of human embryonic stem cell research and abortion. From 2000 to 2017, published over twenty pieces favorable toward human embryonic stem cell research and over fifty pieces favorable to abortion, with virtually no publication of contrary opinion. An aggressive editorial defense of Planned Parenthood Federation most recently seems particularly striking. A secular journal which is meant to represent the entire spectrum of physician opinion in controversial issues has a practical, if not also an ethical, responsibility to provide an unbiased forum for intelligible discussion for evaluation of the merits of particular issues. To do otherwise is publication bias that suppresses legitimate contrary viewpoints having merit and validity.

NONTECHNICAL SUMMARY

Publication bias in medical journals is detrimental to the free exchange of ideas regarding controversial issues. From 2000 to 2017, a premier publication, the (), has shown considerable bias in only publishing articles and editorials highly favorable toward human embryonic stem cell research and abortion, without permitting valid discussion and publication of contrary opinion. The recent strong editorial defense by of Planned Parenthood Federation in their sale of aborted fetal body parts seems particularly striking and disproportionate. Publication bias suppresses legitimate contrary viewpoints with merit and validity, suppressing fair debate in controversial issues.