 |
 |
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