<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/03/EDG2IGCOIT1.DTL" eudora="autourl">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/03/EDG2IGCOIT1.DTL</a> <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/03/EDG2IGCOIT1.DTL">Scandal</a><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/03/EDG2IGCOIT1.DTL"> over Stem-Cell Research A hospitable environment for scientific fraud</a> - 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." [snip] <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/info/copyright/"> </a> </body> </html>