Some attorneys who represent women with implants have alleged that the manufacturers' law firms have attempted to stifle unfavorable articles by putting Schur and other journal editors on their payrolls.

"In my view, the evidence suggest that the manufacturers have attempted to control science by hiring experts who are key players in the decision-making about what gets published," Frederic L. Ellis, a Boston attorney, told the Associated Press yesterday.

Some critics have also questioned Schur's performance as editor of the journal, pointing out that Schur has never published an article critical of breast implants in his four years as editor.

In 1992 and 1993, according to the Associated Press, doctors submitted two articles to Arthritis & Rheumatism supporting the idea that implants cause disease. Schur rejected both papers, which were later published in other journals.

In the same issue that Schur published his own paper, a report solicited from Dow Corning Corp., the biggest defendant in breast implant litigation, was the lead article. The article attacked the news media and plaintiff attorneys for creating an unwarranted panic over breast implants.

Dr. Richard Glass, deputy editor of the journal of the American Medical Association and a member of the international committee, questioned Schur's objectivity as an editor to the Associated Press.

"Editors passing judgment on articles and deciding what to publish should not have any financial conflict of interest," he said.

Harvard Medical School professors and administrators contacted yesterday would not comment on whether their colleague had transgressed any ethical standards.

"He's a very respected professor in the medical school," Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs Mary B. Clark said.

This story was compiled using wire dispatches.