I note from recent correspondence in The Journal, and from remarks passed by some of my colleagues, that I am not alone in feeling uneasy over the opaque and obscure matter of appointing an editor after a period of uncertainty. So suggestive is it of a culture of secrecy such as pervades much of our political events today that it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
Of course, everything may be clear and simple. I hope that it is, but we mere members of the Society surely have a title to know what occasions the delay and uncertainty.
Some of us are unpleasantly reminded of the strange case of the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr George Lundberg, who was dismissed from his editorial chair quite suddenly when something he had admitted to his columns was objected to by his management panel. The JAMA case prompted a flurry of criticism from the editors of other medical journals, who considered that perhaps the principle of editorial independence had been infringed without warrant.
In our own circumstances, it is difficult to understand why the Society should wish to consider appointing a non-pharmacist editor, and should debate it behind closed doors. Members are primarily concerned over the future welfare of their own Journal, and do not appreciate being left in the dark over policies regarding its operation and expertise. Some have already expressed disquiet over a lack of openness which seems to attend the deliberations of their elected Council in certain areas of professional practice, and, given the present state of politics in the land, are suspicious that perhaps there are financial or political undercurrents which are affecting the wellbeing and advance of their Society.
Having perused with some care the policy statements of candidates for Council elections, I cannot explain the situation on the ground that our leaders are stupid. There remains the alternative explanation that they fear that open criticism of the profession may pave the way for unwarranted adverse activity on the part of politicians or big business. That might possibly make them nervous of editorial independence.