From Mr I. D. Thomson, MRPharmS
SIR,—I must admit to being a little surprised that my opinions (PJ, August
12, p237) were featured in
a “Broad Spectrum” article by John Wilson (PJ, September 16, p393),
albeit rather bedraggled from being dredged up and rehashed as they were.
For the record, may I state plainly that I am in complete favour of a strong,
independent Pharmaceutical Journal with an editor who is worthy to succeed Mr
Simpson. Failure to maintain or improve on the present standards is not an option
that should even be considered by Council members, neither is the whispered
downgrading of the post of editor.
I take particular issue with Mr Wilson on two points. First, he asserts that
the responsibility for factual accuracy “is in all cases that of the author
alone, and not of an editor, who accepts material in good faith”. This
is legally incorrect as I understand it. The editor and the proprietor of a
publication would be jointly liable in any action brought by a third party.
(Does Neil Hamilton’s case against Peter Preston and the Guardian ring
any bells?)
My second point is perfectly illustrated by Mr Wilson himself. He fears that
I am implying some sort of editorial censorship would be in order (which is
a bad thing). However, he then reveals that the editor has previously contacted
him to request that he reconsider, on grounds of space, an article which he
had submitted for publication (this is an okay thing because it was done in
a “courteous, personal manner”). Surely this is an example of the
editorial discretion I was alluding to? The end result is the same as if the
censor’s pen had gone straight through Mr Wilson’s magnum opus; the
only difference is that he feels good about it. That’s what I call diplomacy.
I hope that the above does not seem too brusque and I am sure that it is a very
broad interpretation of the facts as they occurred. But I think that the analogy
is fairly recognisable as such. In any case, I only seek to refute the implication
that Mr Wilson believes to be in my letter of August 12, which was not intended
then or now. As I said at the time, it was factual correctness, not political
correctness, that I was looking for.
Iain Thomson
Cannock,
Staffordshire