Under fire: a periodic attack from within
The peer review process, by which scientific research is accepted or rejected by leading journals such as Nature and Science, has come under one of its periodic attacks from within. This might seem an arcane matter to the general public, but it does matter to us all because peer review governs the quality of medical research that leads to the development of new treatments. The drugs we are prescribed a decade from now for a range of conditions—from cancer or heart disease to allergies—may hinge on peer review today. It can also influence the scientific advice ultimately determining major policy decisions—for example, about climate change.
The problem is that cutting edge research can only be properly assessed by specialists in the field who are, to some extent, rivals and may be subliminally at least motivated to produce slightly negative comments. In many
steve goulden
The point about ‘unfashionable’ research cannot be over-emphasised: in many non-frontline research areas, highly capable scientists with truly interesting ideas cannot get funding because they are not in an area of acknowledged ‘frontier research’, and funding is now so tight. These research workers need the support of philanthropists, perhaps aided by a focussed committee, perhaps drawn from retired, therefore unbiased, scientists.
Todd Reitzel
Hunter’s characterization of the letter by 14 stem cell researchers is puzzling: There was no link to it; so I found it (I think) at http://www.eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/peer-review. The letter, dated July 2009, does not mention conflict-of-interest or self-interest, as Hunter implies it does. It does propose publishing referees comments, author responses, and editor letters, but in order to address “variable” publication standards in the stem cell field. One might choose to read conflict of interest into this, but the 14 researchers don’t state it in this letter. There is on that webpage, however, a February 2010 comment by 2 other researchers noting that more transparency could help counteract competition and conflicts of interest. It seems that Hunter is really reporting on that comment, not on the letter.