this edition was going to press, the news broke that the executive vice president of the American Medical Association (AMA), E. Ratcliffe Anderson, had sacked George Lundberg, who had edited the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for 17 years. Because we see this as being of great importance for public health, we have taken the unusual decision to publish a joint editorial that will appear in the European Journal of Public Health and the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health* Most readers will, by now, be familiar with the circumstances surrounding Lundberg's dismissal. A paper reporting that, in 1991, 59% of a sample of American college students would not consider oro-genital contact as 'having sex' had, after peer review, been fast-tracked for publication, appearing the same week as the impeachment trial of President Clinton got underway in the United States Senate. The link was obvious, and indeed the paper's relevance to 'recent presidential statements' was highlighted in a JAMA press release. Anderson argued that this action took the journal 'into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine'. Although the fast-tracking of the paper was cited as die cause for the sacking, it soon became clear diat there were other, underlying, issues. These have been explored in detail by others* and will not be reviewed here, except to note that the AMA may have been feeling especially nervous about how such a paper would influence its support in Washington. The views expressed by die college students were contrary to the case being made by the Republican House managers in the impeachment trial. And die AMA has increasingly been linked widi die Republican Party, making large contributions to Republican congressional candidates in recent years. The AMA may also have felt a need to avoid further controversy in die wake of a hostile media reaction to a deal in which it had agreed to endorse a large corporation's products in return for royalty payments, later cancelling it at a cost of over $13 million.^ The AMA's decision has unleashed a tide of condemnation among editors of medical journals and others. Many