ARTICLE: Scientific Research Put Under Spotlight

[Murray Charters <mcharters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BBC News
Published: 2003/08/10 23:30:30 GMT

Scientific research put under spotlight
Britain's academy of science is to set up an inquiry into how scientific 
research is made public.

It follows rows about the reliability of some studies which, although they were 
published in journals, were later found
to have been based on false or poorly interpreted results.

There is also concern about organisations which make scientific claims in press 
releases and at media conferences but
then present no evidence to support their announcements.

A working party for the Royal Society will look at how research information 
that could influence public opinion and
policy is checked.

It may then recommend changes and some "best practice" guidelines for 
scientists.

'Gold standard'

Most scientific research is "peer reviewed" with other experts analysing the 
results before they are published in a
scientific journal.

The process is supposed to ensure that any study's methodology is sound and 
that interpretation of data does not go
beyond what can be reasonably justified.

Peer review is intended to be a "gold standard" that protects other scientists 
and the public from shoddy research and
fraudulent claims.

But the system does not satisfy everyone, and there is some concern that a 
number of journals may be publishing
research just to grab headlines in the mainstream media.

"I worry it has gone to tabloid newspaper-like battles about silly things 
rather than focussing on the deeper issues of
the science and the real benefits of what it all means," Professor Robin 
Lovell-Badge told the BBC.

The stem cell researcher resigned from the editorial board of one online 
journal after it published claims on human
embryo clones that "had no scientific value".

Public impact

The Royal Society's vice president Sir Patrick Bateson, who will chair the 
working group, added: "Peer review has been
criticised for being too secretive, conducted behind closed doors and assessed 
by anonymous referees".

He said it had also been suggested the process had been used by the 
establishment to "prevent unorthodox ideas, methods
and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public".

But Professor Bateson stressed that peer review was a good form of insurance, 
and anyone who encountered a study -
particularly journalists - should always ask if the science had been checked by 
others.

"Stories that get into the media that haven't been properly reviewed can do 
enormous damage," he said.

"The MMR triple vaccine was a particularly bad case where people were terrified 
because they thought that vaccinating
their children would lead to autism, and the evidence for that was terrible."

Row over GM crops

The Royal Society panel will focus particularly on the reliability of checks on 
research funded by the government,
large companies and pressure groups.

There are concerns that conflicts of interest may influence how a study is 
written up - the interpretation put on data
could be slanted.

Anti-GM campaigners, for example, are deeply sceptical about the science 
commissioned by the UK Government to assess
the impact of novel crops.

They believe the government is determined to push ahead with GM farming whether 
the public wants it or not and that the
science will inevitably turn out to be supportive.

Sir Patrick said scientists used peer review "almost exclusively" to publicise 
findings. But he said researchers could
still attract publicity "for highly questionable results even when they offered 
no evidence that their research had
been checked".

Real proof

This was evident earlier this year when the Raelian sect announced the births 
of human clones.

The only proof the sect's US-based company Clonaid produced to support its 
assertion was a photograph of one of the
children alleged to have been born in Japan.

Many scientists dismissed this and demanded DNA evidence. None was provided.

"If you publish by press conference, you are bound to allow bad research to get 
out into the media," Professor Bateson
said.

The Royal Society's working group on scientific research includes leading 
journal editors, such as Dr Phillip Campbell
from Nature and Dr Andrew Sugden from Science, as well as journalists and 
academics working in the field of science
communication.

Submissions can be made to the panel up to 26 September.

A "best practice" guide for scientists may then be devised.

SOURCE: The BBC NEWS


* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn