These academics complaining of Lancet's pro-Palestinian bias are fighting a lost battle
Academics should not be in the business of stifling free speech and putting their name to such bad prose
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Richard Horton has taken The Lancet back to its radical roots, speaking truth to power, holding the powerful to account and giving a voice to those who are not heard, like the children of Gaza. Most editors follow their readers, but the way Richard has led on global health is extraordinary.
The 500 complaining academics remind me of the White Russians, continuing to fight a battle that has been lost. The Committee on Publication Ethics has ruled there are no grounds for retracting the open letter, as has The Lancet’s ombudsman. Reed Elsevier, the journal’s owner, has sensibly stayed silent to avoid compromising the editorial independence of The Lancet, its most valuable possession.
Have all the academics actually read the highly intemperate, sometimes inaccurate letter they have signed? Academics should not be in the business of stifling free speech and putting their name to such bad prose. Open and full debate is fundamental to both science and politics, and the right response to something that you disagree with is to encourage, not suppress, debate.
As John Milton wrote, “Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter… If it come to prohibiting, there is not ought more likely to be prohibited than truth itself.”
Richard Smith is a former editor of the BMJ and a co-founder of the Committee on Publication Ethics