Imagine having an ongoing opportunity to share your thoughts with a potential audience of 150,000. After 11 years and 131 editorials, there will be a void.
I have been asked repeatedly, "What will you miss most when your JADA editorship comes to a close?" Without hesitation, I answer, "I will miss no longer producing the monthly JADA editorial."
Imagine having an ongoing opportunity to share your thoughts with a potential audience of 150,000. After 11 years and 131 editorials, there will be a void.
Each of the JADA editorials is built on the philosophy that action starts with knowledge. A commitment to that principle requires continuous searches for issues that are professionally relevant and have a broad appeal to the JADA audience. The results of thorough searches and collation of pertinent background material precedes the creation of the editorial’s narrative. Most editorials end with a problem-solving proposal.
If that format attracts reader interest—whether they agree with it or not—I consider the editorial a success. In the instances in which communities of interest take actions suggested in the editorial, that’s a real plus. As my editorship draws to a close, I have examined past editorials for potential "pluses." Let me share my selections with you and see if you agree with my assessment.
Two editorials, "Outrageous" (March 1999)1 and "Outrageous II" (January 2001),2 focused on the growing number of "pouring rights" contracts between schools and the heavyweights of the soft-drink industry. Both editorials described the exclusive contracts and the potential proceeds for the schools that reach millions of dollars, depending in many cases on the children’s drinking the "required amount of cans" specified in the contract.
The statement of a high-ranking school official imploring teachers to get their students to drink more soda by "allowing students virtually unlimited access to soft drink machines"—moving the machines to where they would be accessible to the students all day, permitting students to purchase and consume vended products throughout the day and even "allowing students to drink their soft drinks in class"—compelled me to characterize these actions as examples of "blatant" child abuse. Others consider it outright exploitation of children.
The initial editorial chastised dentists for not becoming involved in opposing the school promotion of products that lead directly to increased oral disease. The follow-up piece praised dentists, as evidence of their involvement in fighting school/industry contracts grew substantially across the nation.
No doubt those dentists crusading against pouring rights were heartened to read about Coke’s apparently new policy to "aggressively discourage bottlers from making controversial exclusive arrangements with schools to promote the sale of soda." While dentistry’s contribution to this policy reversal is difficult to measure, it can be said that we were there!
Opponents of these contracts aren’t satisfied with the Coke announcement. Considering the new policy as only a publicity stunt, they believe nothing will change. They may be right. More evidence is needed before pouring rights contracts can be placed in the "plus" category.
The editorials "Do It or Lose It" (August 1997)3 and "One More Time" (July 1999),4 which addressed the issue of oral cancer, appear to be bona fide competitors for a "plus" rating. With the message that "for a disease that is dentistry’s to prevent and treat, we have demonstrated a singular lack of progress in controlling the occurrence of oral and pharyngeal cancer," the thrust of these editorials was to light a fire under the profession to take an active role in early diagnosis and prevention programs. To detect oral cancer, you have to look for it.
Good news. Grassroots dental activity in establishing programs to recognize oral cancer appear to be on the upswing. Notable is the recent public promotion of free cancer screenings by a coalition of health institutions in the New York/New Jersey region. Their visible success encouraged similar institutions in the Boston area to duplicate their programming. Other states and regions are considering similar programs.
A "plus" score should be considered.
Sometimes a "plus" takes a long time to develop. It was back in August 1992 when an editorial called "The Next Revolution: It’s Here"5 proposed that "because of the sophisticated technology and high cost of these innovations, organized dentistry, in concert with industry, should consider providing its members with a number of regional advanced dental technology centers."
In that regard, the University of Minnesota recently announced the opening of its new clinical center, where "students, faculty and practicing clinicians will have access to the latest technologies in dentistry." Supported by a major corporation that has committed to providing new equipment on an ongoing basis, the clinic promises to offer dental students and dental practitioners training in cutting-edge technologies. What a great model for others to emulate!
Surely deserving a plus, if the legislation ever passes both legislative chambers, is the issue of patient protection. As depicted in the editorial " ‘I Think I Can ... I Thought I Could’ " (April 1998),6 organized dentistry helped bring this issue to national prominence when others, far better positioned, were unwilling to do so. As each new rendition of legislation has been offered, the ADA’s "Little Engine That Could" has stood firm, unwilling to accept any legislation that does not completely secure patients’ rights.
For those disturbed by use of human subjects in licensure examinations, the editorial "The Perfect Patient" (October 2000)7 would garner a number of votes for a "plus." The ADA’s House of Delegates resolution 64H-2000 (calling for elimination of the use of human subjects in the clinical licensure examination by 2005) caused a great deal of excitement among those who have sought licensure reform for years, especially students. Associations in a number of states, Texas being the most recent, have passed similar resolutions.
These are my choices for "pluses." While I’m sure that others would merit equal recognition, I’m equally convinced there are some that would qualify as "minuses"—editorials that missed the mark.
After all, editorial writing is far from an exact science.
Although I participate in an occasional course in editorial writing for dental editors, I have no illusions that editorial achievement can be attained by following a set of rules. Rather, success depends more on the editor’s ability to be insightful and predictive, to be a step ahead of what is considered correct and to be willing to share thoughts that may not be mainstream—to go where others fear to go.
Stimulating the reader’s mind, that’s really what it’s all about. "Pluses" are just frosting.
