The Lancet 2005; 366:868
10 September 2005
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67292-3
SourceProf Gene Feder and colleagues claim in this week's issue that The Lancet finds “itself connected to the profits of the global arms trade”, a situation that, they say, is “incompatible with The Lancet's guiding principles”. During Sept 13–16, 2005, Spearhead Exhibitions—a part of Reed Elsevier, The Lancet's current publishers—is hosting one of the largest military exhibitions in the world, the Defence Systems and Equipment international (DSEi). The Lancet has a long record of drawing attention to the adverse health consequences of war and violence. We reject completely any perceived connection between the journal and the arms trade, no matter how tangential it might be. The Lancet is an entirely independent publication, editorially and financially. It is not subsidised by profits from any other part of Reed Elsevier.
DSEi takes place in association with the UK's Ministry of Defence. Over 1000 companies will exhibit their weapons and related systems at the arms fair in London's Docklands. In their promotional literature, our owners emphasise the “selling process” at DSEi, which is cited as a “key event for the total supply chain” of arms. At the last DSEi, held in 2003, this “selling process” included technologies such as cluster bombs, which are widely deplored by UN agencies and human rights organisations.
It would be grossly naive for The Lancet to argue that nations do not need responsible and well-managed defence industries as a means to protect themselves from security threats. Without security, health systems would be neither stable nor sustainable. But it would be equally naive to argue that the legality of a weapon somehow absolves a country, manufacturer, or even an exhibitions company from a judgment about the weapon's use, sale, or promotion.
More reasonably, one would expect the world's largest medical publisher to align its business values with the professional values of the majority of those it serves. Values of harm reduction and science-based decision-making are the core of public-health practice. Certain military technologies that Reed Elsevier has allowed to be showcased at DSEi are contrary to these values. In 2003, Reed Elsevier allowed INSYS, Israeli Military Industries, and Raytheon (all cluster bomb manufacturers) to exhibit at DSEi. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade estimates that there will be at least 15 cluster bomb producers at DSEi in 2005. Cluster bombs have high failure rates, creating de-facto minefields. Their effects do not discriminate between military targets and civilian populations. They are the worst kind of weapon.
The UN Mine Action Strategy specifically includes unexploded cluster bombs in its vision of a mine-free world. UNICEF reported that over 1000 children were injured by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, after the Iraq war in 2003. Human Rights Watch has called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs until their civilian effects have been resolved. The Lancet has consistently opposed the use of cluster bombs. It will be incomprehensible to the journal's readers that our owners are engaged in a business that so clearly undermines not only principles of public-health practice, but also the policies of intergovernmental agencies.
Reed Elsevier's response is that the sale of military equipment is legal, government supported, and tightly regulated. However, The Lancet's collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example, risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier's promotion of the “selling process” of arms. The arms industry draws vital investment away from the health budgets of low-income nations. In 2004, 59% of arms sales were to developing countries, at a total cost to their economies of US$22 billion.
Reed Elsevier has provided enormous material support to The Lancet during the past decade. It has never wavered in backing the journal's editorial independence, as proven by the publication of this leader comment. We cannot believe that Reed Elsevier wishes to jeopardise that commitment by its presence in a business that so self-evidently damages its reputation as a health-science publisher.
The Lancet's editors and the journal's International Advisory Board were unaware of Reed Elsevier's involvement with DSEi until a few weeks ago. We are deeply troubled by this connection to the arms trade. On behalf of our readers and contributors, we respectfully ask Reed Elsevier to divest itself of all business interests that threaten human, and especially civilian, health and well-being.
The Lancet