Among 2, 195 reference citations, published during 1975 in ten major US medical journals, 634 (29%) were found to be erroneous on direct checking of the original source. The percentage of error within individual journals ranged from 14 to 50 per cent. Such a high error rate would seem to seriously diminish the usefulness of published reference lists and, possibly, raise questions about the accuracy of other portions of the literature also.

The use of emotionally laden words in the scientific literature, especially on controversial topics, tends to undermine objectivity. Readers begin to respond emotionally rather than rationally. To investigate this phenomenon on some systematic basis, we reviewed all the articles and letters published in two major medical journals in 1971 on the subject of commonly used psychoactive drugs, Many of these articles contained words used rhetorically rather than scientifically, which undoubtedly altered opinions or reinforced prejudices among many readers, words such as “alarming,” “abuse,” “addiction,” and “epidemic.” We believe that such rhetoric has no place in the scientific literature. It involves value judgments and not scientific evaluation, and as such concerns social and not scientific issues. We conclude, then, that authors must avoid language that persuades rather than explains. Moreover, editors must accept a special responsibility to prevent semantic abuses from creeping into their journals.

Both science and the public can be harmed by premature or inaccurate publicity. Physicians' concern centers on the damaging effects of inaccuracy and sensationalism and on the hazards of invasion of privacy. Balancing these concerns is a legitimate desire by the public to know about scientific progress. Medicine has fairly specific ethical guidelines for physicians' conduct in this area; an analogous code for science writers might help to control the occasional abuses of trust by these writers. At the same time physicians must become more skillful in communicating information.