Through the kindness of Dr. Conolly Norman, I am enabled to report the following case of spontaneous cardiac rupture.

At the present time when the Mental Deficiency Bill is before Parliament a discussion on the above subject may be of some interest to the readers of the Journal of Mental Science.

We argue that editorial independence, through robust practice of publication ethics and research integrity, promotes good science and prevents bad science. We elucidate the concept of research integrity, and then discuss the dimensions of editorial independence. Best practice guidelines exist, but compliance with these guidelines varies. Therefore, we make recommendations for protecting and strengthening editorial independence.

In the history of any scientific discipline, certain people stand out because they effectively defined the discipline, separated it from neighbouring specialities, and gave it a local habitation and a name. Three names stand out in the history (brief though it may be) of the scientific study of personality. The first is A. Heymans, a Dutch philosopher who almost single-handedly introduced the various theoretical, methodological and psychometric methods that characterise modern personality study (Eysenck, 1992). In the early years of this century, he put forward theories of specific personality dimensions, carried out rating studies on large numbers of subjects, correlated traits and devised a primitive method of factor analysis, derived factors that have stood the test of time (extraversion and neuroticism, to give them their modern names), and even went so far as to carry out psychological and physiological experiments to test deductions from these theories. As a reward for all this pioneering effort he is completely neglected in the modern literature; Hall et al (1985), in their Introduction to Theories of Personality gave much room to nonentities like Medard Boss, but make no mention of Heymans. He committed the ultimate crime of not being born in America, and must therefore be considered a non-person. Fortunately his theories and methodologies five on, largely in the London School.

While clozapine has risks, relative risk of fatality is overestimated. The UK pharmacovigilance programme is efficient, but comparisons with other drugs can mislead because of reporting variations. Clozapine actually lowers mortality, partly by reducing schizophrenia-related suicides, but preventable deaths still occur. Clozapine should be used earlier and more widely, but there should be better monitoring and better management of toxicity.