Current debate and commentaries about the paper by Wax et al regarding outcomes of home births have focused on methodological flaws. Another serious concern is the selective quoting of results and conclusions in the paper’s abstract and the misleading press release from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) entitled “Planned Home Births Associated with Tripling of Neonatal Mortality Rate Compared to Planned Hospital Births,” that stated “…of significant concern, these apparent benefits are associated with a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate overall and a near tripling among infants born without congenital defects.” The news story was picked up by the mass media, and reported uncritically in BMJ and The Lancet .

These practices are unethical, causing harm through unfounded confusion and fear, and misleading policymakers and the public. The Singapore statement on research integrity represents the first international effort to unify policies, guidelines, and codes of conduct for researchers worldwide. Accordingly, the AJOG publication would fail on 2 counts: (1) poor quality of the study; and (2) author recommendations made beyond what the data support and outside of their professional expertise. Obstetricians are not the leading professional group in home birth and midwifery-led care, and should not reach policy conclusions in isolation. It is essential to use appropriate subject peer reviewers: in this case midwife and epidemiology experts in studies examining midwifery care and birth setting.

The AJOG needs to review its quality assurance procedures to ensure that standards of assessing and communicating science are improved. “Bad science” damages both the public and professionals.