Our censored journals

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Problematic Advice From Suicide Prevention Experts

Based on a 10-year systematic review of suicide prevention strategies, “29 suicide prevention experts from 17 European countries” recommend 4 allegedly evidence-based strategies to be included in national suicide prevention programs. One of the recommended strategies is pharmacological treatment of depression. This recommendation is problematic for several reasons. First, it is based on a biased selection and interpretation of available evidence. Second, the authors have failed to take into consideration the widespread corruption in the research on antidepressants. Third, the many and serious side effects of antidepressants are not considered. Thus, the recommendation may have deleterious consequences for countless numbers of people, and, in fact, contribute to an increase in the suicide rate rather than a decrease.

Antidepressants and adolescent brain development

Despite being a first-line treatment for adolescent depression and anxiety, antidepressant drugs appear to have questionable efficacy and carry an increased risk of adverse effects in this population. The neural mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are currently unknown. Recent research into the neural effects of alcohol and recreational drugs suggests that the developmental trajectory of the adolescent brain may be particularly vulnerable to pharmacological disturbance. It is therefore important to consider whether prescription psychotropic drugs may have analogous effects. This article reviews the contribution of recent preclinical, clinical and pharmacogenetic literature to current knowledge on the short-term and enduring neural effects of antidepressants on the adolescent brain, with a particular focus on the major neurotransmitter systems and neuroplasticity.

Of sophists and spin-doctors: industry-sponsored ghostwriting and the crisis of academic medicine

Ghostwriting for medical journals has become a major, but largely invisible, factor contributing to the problem of credibility in academic medicine. In this paper I argue that the pharmaceutical marketing objectives and use of medical communication firms in the production of ghostwritten articles constitute a new form of sophistry. After identifying three distinct types of medical ghostwriting, I survey the known cases of ghostwriting in the literature and explain the harm done to academic medicine and to patients. Finally, I outline steps to address the problem and restore the integrity of the medical literature.