'It is a peer-reviewed article,' says JAMA's editor-in-chief of the controversial fetal pain report. 'They are not reporting their own findings. It's a review article based on what's in the literature.... The references are there. Anybody who doubts the veracity can go to the original article and say they misinterpreted it.'

The report, published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, analyzed previously published research and concluded that fetuses probably don't feel pain until 29 weeks after conception because of their developing brain structures.

Undisclosed was the fact that one of the five authors runs an abortion clinic at San Francisco's public hospital while another author worked temporarily more than five years ago for an abortion rights advocacy group.

Regrettable Omission or Irrelevant?

Several ethicists said they consider those points regrettable omissions that left readers without important information. Other experts consider the authors' background irrelevant.

"The standard for disclosure in medical and scientific journals is not your politics. There's no obligation to tell people what your mindset is ... as long as the data is sound and gathered objectively," said Dr. Alan Leff, a University of Chicago pulmonologist and editor of the Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society.

Anti-abortion groups insist that the authors' affiliations are crucially important.

"These are people with years of professional and ideological investment in the pro-abortion cause, not some neutral team of medical professionals," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "We think readers and viewers have a right to know who's filtering the information they're being presented with."

The two researchers in question are Dr. Eleanor Drey, an associate clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco, and Susan J. Lee, a medical student. Their colleagues included a neuro-anatomist, an anesthesiologist and a pediatrician.

Drey runs an abortion clinic at San Francisco General Hospital. Lee spent eight months working as a lawyer for the National Abortions Rights Action League in 1999 and 2000 before going to medical school. Neither affiliation was disclosed to JAMA's editors or to readers.

Dr. Philip Darney, chief of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at San Francisco General Hospital, defended that decision, saying in a statement: "The research team does not believe that being an abortion provider is a conflict of interest."

Medical journals require authors to disclose financial ties to industry or other funding sources. But there are no standards for disclosing other factors that might influence an author, such as clinical practices or organizational affiliations.

Mean-Spirited Email from Fanatics

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor-in-chief, said she wasn't concerned by Drey's failure to indicate she performed abortions. "That's part of [an ob-gyn's] scope of practice. They don't have to reveal that."

As for Lee, DeAngelis said: "Was she a college student [when she worked for NARAL]? Is she a member? I don't know. I'm going to find out ... [and] I want the authors to have the opportunity to explain why they didn't reveal it."

A Roman Catholic who opposes abortion, DeAngelis said she had been swamped over the past several days with critical emails about the fetal pain study from "people with no medical background, no science background, religious fanatics, people who are mean spirited."

She stressed that the report was reviewed by several outside experts and thoroughly vetted by her own staff.

"It is a peer-reviewed article," DeAngelis said. "They are not reporting their own findings. It's a review article based on what's in the literature.... The references are there. Anybody who doubts the veracity can go to the original article and say they misinterpreted it."

That is the way science is supposed to work, said Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

"As a scientist, if you think I'm wrong, you probe my data, question my findings and do a critical study -- not point your finger and talk about my politics," Caplan said.

Rigorous methodology is supposed to minimize the potential for bias in scientific research, he said, "whether studies are done by communists in China or free-marketers in Chicago, whether they're done by left-wingers in Berkeley or right-wingers at the Wharton School here in Pennsylvania."

Distrust of Science Distressing

True enough, but others argue that certain medical issues are so explosive politically -- abortion certainly, and perhaps stem cell research and animal rights -- that researchers have a special obligation to inform readers of relevant affiliations.

The San Francisco researchers "must have known there would be criticism from the right-to-life people," said Dr. Arnold Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "In a situation as contentious as this, it seems more disclosure should be the rule rather than less."

Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School, is also a former editor of the New England Journal. "Suppose it were the other way," she said. "Suppose there were an article that said that [fetuses] do feel pain and it was written by people who were involved in the right-to-life movement. Would I want to know that? I think I would."

With an issue as divisive as abortion, disclosing potentially important associations can only help a journal editor, said Sheldon Krimsky, author of "Science in the Private Interest."

"It kind of ratchets up everyone's attention to the science and makes them that much more vigilant in detecting potential bias," he said.

Still, the distrust of science now seen in our culture is distressing, several experts said.

When you begin to second-guess scientists' methods and routinely call their objectivity into question, "then we've come to a time in which, tragically, science becomes driven by politics," said Laurie Zoloth, director of the bioethics for Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. By Judith Graham and Ronald Kotulak

.