The BMJ Today: Sponsorship, epilepsy, and votes

David Payne Welcome to this new blog category, The BMJ Today. We aim to post an update each weekday of recent articles and other content to have caught our eye. We hope it will function as an online editor’s choice, chosen by different members of The BMJ’s editorial team each day.

Our first highlighted article is Drug treatment of epilepsy in adults, the latest in our in-depth “State of the Art” clinical reviews series. The article, written by Berlin based Dieter Schmidt and Steven C Schachter, from Harvard, was our second most visited article over the weekend, with 2746 visits.

We don’t post articles over the weekend, but we do publish plenty of blog and article responses. Richard Hurley’s blog about the forthcoming Indian elections continues to generate debate. Which party would most improve healthcare in India? Vote in our reader poll at

Moving to UK politics, David Owen’s surprise donation to the UK Labour Party hit the headlines yesterday. Why is this news? Owen’s BMJ Confidential interview, published a few days ago, provides a few clues.

And finally, the thorny issue of sponsorship. A second BMJ online poll asks: Should medical journals publish sponsored content? linked to a recent head to head debate, Fiona Godlee’s latest Editor’s choice, and the results of a small reader survey. One response posted over the weekend says the editor’s choice “gives the impression that the survey was done to reinforce the position of the editor regarding sponsorship. Submitting science to social and economic prejudice is as dangerous as the financial conflicts of interest one wants to avoid. The BMJ seems to be acting more like a political party than as a scientific journal.”

What do you think?

David Payne is editor,, and readers’ editor.