HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lawrence, D. W Articles by Patel, N. B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lawrence, D. W Articles by Patel, N. B

Attacks intended to block access to information

¹ Karolinska Institutet, Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of International Health (IHCAR), Injuries’ Social Aetiology and Consequences Group, Stockholm, Sweden
² San Diego State University, Graduate School of Public Health, Center for Injury Prevention Policy and Practice

David W Lawrence, Center for Injury Prevention Policy & Practice, San Diego State University, PO Box 15817, San Diego, CA 92175, USA; david.lawrence@sdsu.edu

Accepted 5 February 2008

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The problem of attacks by those who feel threatened by scientific evidence has existed for hundreds of years.¹ In the USA, researchers who examine controversial safety-related issues and the institutions that support their studies are well known to have been the targets of threats. Among the topics that have generated storms of conflict in the injury field are firearms laws and requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets.^{2 3} It is, perhaps, not so well known that the sources that provide information are also at risk from those who disagree with some of the content.

Almost from its inception, SafetyLit⁴ (a no-cost, World Health Organization-affiliated online resource for current and older injury-related research articles) has received emailed comments from readers who disagreed with part of its content. The early messages simply pointed out possible conflicts of interest by the authors of editorials or policy statements and methodological problems with certain published studies. As . . . [Full text of this article]