This position paper is the result of discussions between the Associate Editors and Editors of the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, which took place over the summer of 2013 in response to the need to have some guidelines regarding publishing research findings that involved compounds or extracts of natural products that have not yet been fully characterized. Some journals have adopted the policy that they will not publish such studies. In the instruction for authors for the journal Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology it states as follows: “For all compounds used in the studies, the chemical constitution and composition should be known, also for natural compounds” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291742–7843/ homepage/ForAuthors.html). However, I will argue that to do so is not only a form of censorship, but it also ignores the need for disclosure of information that may be critical to the evaluation of the neutral, beneficial, or detrimental properties of such compounds. Failure to expose these studies to full scientific scrutiny abandons the primary tenant of science: to dispassionately examine all of the facts. Further, failure to do somay put individuals at undue risk, and thus is ethically questionable. Although it is much easier to evaluate the potential when there is a “defined chemical”, and certainly easier to find reviewers, extracts of native species may not have reached that level of purity. Indeed, the American College of Cardiology ACCF Complementary Medicine Experts Consensus publication on complementary andalternativemedicines concluded that “FewU.S. products benefit from rigorous characterization and standardization necessary for clinical study” (Vogel et al. 2005). Nevertheless, 40% to 50% of Americans are using complementary medicines together with prescription drugs (Vogel et al. 2005). Thus, to ignore the potential interactions of nonprescription usage is putting a very high proportion of the population at risk (Zipes 2001; Tachjian et al. 2010). To restrict CJPP publication to only fully chemically characterized compounds, removes from scientific scrutiny some early and potentially important discoveries. For example, there is the classical description in 1785 by William Withering, an English botanist, chemist, geologist, and physician, of the benefits of extracts from the foxglove (Digitalis purpurea) (Goldthorp 2009). Withering's description has been described as the beginning of modern therapeutics. Subsequently, there was the determination of the active compound digitalis, which is still in common clinical use today. Another example is a naturally occurring biological product, the long term search for the elusive endothelium-derived relaxation factor “EDRF”. It took decades to identify this as the gas nitric oxide (NO) (Moncada 2006). There also is the example provided by my colleague Dr. Ed Lui, (pers. comm.) of the purification of rosy periwinkle (Cathanthus roseus) extract. The best knownmedical agents from rosy periwinkle arose from investigation into the plant's use in Jamaican folk medicine. Known as periwinkle tea in Jamaica, the well-known folk-use of rosy periwinkle led researchers to delve into its natural chemical properties in the 1950s. Scientific analysis of rosy periwinkle led to the discovery of 2 previously unknown compounds, vincristine and vinblastine, which have been subsequently developed into potent medicines to save lives from leukemia (Bucur et al. 2013) and Hodgkin's lymphoma (Skoetz et al. 2013), respectively. One final example is the recent publication by Cheng (Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA), of a nonpurified product based on a traditional Chinese formula, and its ability to reduce chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (Lam et al. 2010). Of course not all studies show beneficial responses: toxicity is equally important to document. A neutral response is also important as the sale of “natural products” in North America has been stated as reaching 30 billion dollars in 2001 (Vogel et al. 2005). CJPP is not considering an open door policy for undisciplined science. Rather, it is proposing a set of guidelines to assist in maintaining an ethical and scientifically rigorous approach to publishing articles that use natural products. The approach in this set of guidelines attempts to reduce potential misinformation; however, at the same time, following the guidelines would permit some early exploratory descriptions and knowledge of/alert to potentially beneficial/harmful compounds being assessed. Two keys to the publication of the results include (i) clear and detailed descriptions of the methods used, and (ii), to completely as possible describe the way in which the product was obtained. It would be necessary to have these “keys” in the Instructions to Authors, and it would be important for the journal to screen articles for compliance prior to sending to the Associate Editors for review assignment. In conclusion, exclusion from publication simply because a study uses a natural product is not only a form of censorship, but it removes the important disclosure of information that may be critical to the evaluation of the neutral, beneficial, or detrimental properties of such compounds. It removes these studies from rigorous scientific scrutiny of all the facts. A lack of rigorous scientific scrutiny may put individuals at undue risk and thus, in my opinion, is ethically questionable.