This article deals with the many factors that influence research results.
There is another factor that deservers attention in our ongoing discussion,
that being the hope of the people who are afflicted and those that are
Care givers including the professional staff.

Bernie Barber
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scandal over Stem-Cell Research

A hospitable environment for scientific fraud


- Spyros Andreopoulos

Tuesday, January 3, 2006


During my career as a science writer, I grew accustomed to believing that if

something is published in a prestigious scientific journal such as Science
or
Nature, then it must be true.

South Korean scientist Dr. Hwang Woo Suk has been regarded as one of the
most brilliant researchers in his field. So why would he concoct an
elaborate
hoax in the pages of Science, as his critics claim, that he had cloned a
dog,
and created human embryonic stem cells matched to patients who might
benefit from them?

Perhaps the answer is nothing more than ego. But another explanation could
be the culture of science itself, which puts a premium on originality, on
being
first to make a scientific discovery. Being second, or third, hardly counts
at
all. In Hwang's case, the illusion was finally shattered by skeptical
co-workers
who shed light on his alleged misconduct, but not before Hwang's paper was
published in Science.

If the work was a hoax, how did it get past the peer-review process that is
supposed to prevent bad science from getting published in a prestigious
journal in the first place?

The causes of fakery in science are a matter of debate. Its incidence,
whether
episodic or widespread, could be due to individual aberrations. In "The
Great
Betrayal: Fraud in Science," author Horace Freeland Judson blames it on
inadequate mentoring of scientists, veneration of a high volume of published

research, chases for grants and glory and political pressures for practical
results.

But another probable cause contributing to lapses in individual behavior
could be the scientific journals themselves. I have long suspected that the
insidious rise of publication costs and fierce competition among journals
may
have contributed a hospitable environment for fraud.

Concern about this problem first surfaced in a 1987 letter to Science by Dr.

Robert G. Martin, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health. "It
would
appear," he wrote, "that some leading journals have policies to accept
incomplete manuscripts if they are judged scientifically exciting. These
same
journals often reject well-documented work under the pretext that it lacks
sufficient general interest, particularly when a preliminary report on the
same
topic has appeared elsewhere.

"The message to young investigators is clear: Give us your half-baked ideas
and spare us the boring details. At least 10 percent of what appears in our
leading journals, while certainly not fraudulent, is, however, incomplete,
inadequate and even incompetent. In this milieu, if scientific fraud is not
increasing, it will be. The victims will be all of us."

Science, Nature and other premier journals are fierce competitors for
subscribers, advertising dollars and intellectual primacy. In today's world,

they cannot afford to be otherwise. But when they put a premium on
groundbreaking research and being first in the papers they publish, they can

be easily duped. There is nothing to stop some researchers from shading
their
results, tidying up data or inventing them so as to give editors and peer
reviewers what they want.

When journals go beyond accepted boundaries, they may risk their
credibility. In its issue of July 17, 2003, for example, the editors of the
New
England Journal of Medicine denounced congressional efforts to ban use of
medical treatments derived from embryonic stem cells. But as news reports
have noted, they invited authors to contribute articles on embryonic
stem-cell
research to highlight their promise, implying that they would be given extra

attention beyond what is accorded to completed research chosen for
scientific
merit. "We want to be sure that legislative myopia does not blur scientific
insight," the editors declared in explaining their new editorial policy.

Last year, California taxpayers were persuaded to put themselves $3 billion
in
debt to support embryonic stem- cell research -- only to discover later, as
The
Chronicle reported in September, that the promised cures are "nowhere close,

maybe decades away." The article reflected the consensus of a conference
sponsored by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the state
agency created to implement Prop. 71. Stem-cell research is a highly worthy
endeavor and merits our support. But it is one thing for politicians to make

promises; it is another for scientists and journal editors who value
objectivity
and factual accuracy to assume advocacy roles that teeter on the edge of
credibility.

Journal editors should consider declaring a moratorium on publishing
sensational discoveries until they can figure out how to keep unreliable
research out of their publications. One rule of thumb should be what good
editors have stressed for years: "If the research sounds too good to be
true, it
needs another look." The editors of Science did ask for additional data. But

what carried weight in the decision to publish the Hwang paper? Can the
journal avoid such problems in the future?

Beyond tightening up requirements for authors and eliminating biases in the
peer review process, we need to shift gears from managing scientific fraud
to
preventing it. In a 2002 report, the Institute of Medicine called on
academic
medical centers to take steps to relieve the prevalent "pressure-cooker"
environment in their labs, and cultivate responsible research conduct
through
education backed by a strong reward system. In such a system there would be
greater emphasis on the quality, originality and significance of published
research rather than on quantity. Work would be discussed openly, and data
reviewed frequently not only by laboratory chiefs, but challenged by
disinterested parties. These exercises would include heavy application of
skepticism.

We should be concerned about the lasting damage the Hwang affair may do
to the reputation of stem-cell research. Scientists and journal editors
could
help to rebuild public trust by taming their enthusiasm in promoting
breakthroughs and cures, and by conveying the fact that stem-cell biology is

complicated and that new discoveries have not made understanding its
potential easier. They must prove that the edifice of stem-cell research is
solid, not built of sand.

Spyros Andreopoulos is director emeritus of the Office of Communication
and Public Affairs at the Stanford University School of Medicine. This
article
reflects his opinion alone.

Page B - 5
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/03/EDG2IGCOIT1.DTL

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn