Peer Review Anonymity on Trial
Ferland Louis H.
ferlandl at ERE.UMontreal.CA
Sun Jan 14 02:46:48 EST 1996
On 13 Jan 1996, Gregory R. Harriman wrote:
> Date: 13 Jan 1996 22:43:25 GMT
> From: Gregory R. Harriman <gregoryh at bcm.tmc.edu>
> To: bioforum at net.bio.net
> Subject: Re: Peer Review Anonymity on Trial
> In article <96013.004838U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu>, <U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:
> > Ahhh... we are back to that again!
> > I really can't imagine a month going by without debating this issue
> > yet again?
> If it bothers you to have to debate this issue again, I'm sorry.
> However, I was simply responding to the statement in Berezin's article
> which started this thread stating "there is indeed relatively LITTLE
> progress coming from biomedical establishment". Since IMHO that is an
> incorrect statement, I felt obliged to respond.
> > And to be very blunt... it is my personal opinion, that more
> > progress has been made due to ideas stolen from science fiction and
> > fortuitous accidents... then by some nobel pursuit for the greater
> > good.
> You are entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, I doubt most people
> believe, as you apparently do, that the majority of scientists are
> corrupt, cheating, greedy or incompetent.
> > Just think... what if the majority of people in science actually
> > worked towards solving problems and discovering unknowns instead of
> > where their next grant is coming from and how many journals they
> > have published in this year?
> You do a disservice to many scientists who are interested in
> discovery and improving the health and well-being of people. Is it a
> crime because they also have to worry about where they are going to get
> money to do research and to live on? If you have any better ideas of how
> scientists can get the money to do this, I'd sure be interested in hearing
> > And many labs I have worked in don't even know how to do a proper
> > cell count...
> I'm sorry you've had such a negative experience in science. Still,
> not everyone has had uniformly bad experiences. Some scientists even know
> how to do cell counts.
> > But...one would think that after 15 years, we would definitively
> > know whether AZT actually works or not???
> > Don't you think?
> > Instead, we have dueling studies.
> > And AZT is not alone in this... there are many drugs in which
> > contradicting studies come out.
> > And any half-way intelligent person should be able to recognize
> > that such dueling studies aren't a factor of a poor understanding
> > of complex issues.... but more due to intense competition at it's
> > *highest* level.
> And any half-way intelligent person would realize that science has
> always been a dialectic process. Look at scientific controversies in
> previous eras: spontaneous generation (Lamarkians) versus those who
> believed in reproduction, or the Darwinians who believed in natural
> selection versus those who believed that evolution resulted when organisms
> acquired new traits from their environment. No doubt, many of the same
> negative attributes (greed, selfishness, incompetence, etc) which you
> endow current scientists with existed in these previous eras. Still,
> science continues to make progress despite that.
> > Unfortunately... many sick and dying people aren't able to make it
> > to the end of this marathon.
> This may come as a surprise, but people were dying of diseases long
> before you and I were born. And, people will still be dying from diseases
> long after you and I are gone. Because scientists and doctors don't have
> god-like powers and don't know everything is hardly an indictment of
> science or medicine.
> > Self-policing has been proven to be a myth.
> > The ORI is generally ineffective, unless of course the person cited
> > for misconduct 'agrees' to abide by their ruling.
> In fact, recent events should give reason for pause when advocating
> that the government, regulatory agencies or other forms of big brother are
> the solution. Try reading the January issue of Nature Medicine. It talks
> about how only now after several years, has Imanishi-Kari gotten a chance
> to challenge in court some of the previous accusations made against her by
> the ORI and Senator Dingell. For those not familiar with the case, she
> was previously accused of falsifying experimental data in a paper that was
> published in Cell several years ago. It turns out that her lawyers were
> able to find evidence that the Secret Service (which investigated her) and
> a member of Senator Dingell's committee either (nice interpretation)
> botched the investigation or (not so nice interpretation) conspired in an
> attempt to make Dr. Imanishi-Kari look guilty. Anyone who followed this
> case knows that Senator Dingell and his staff (for political purposes
> perhaps?) went out of their way to discredit her. The sword cuts both
> ways. I don't know the true facts in Imanishi-Kari's case but sometimes
> people get unfairly accused by people who are more interested in
> condemning than in trying to find the truth.
> > Try looking at the whole picture and not just from your very nice
> > view point over their at Baylor (because that is truly not the
> > norm... trust me on this one!).
> I don't need to trust you on this one. I've done research at three
> other scientific institutions besides Baylor, including two in California
> and the NIH. I've seen more than you think, including examples of just
> about everything you have described. I'm as disgusted by it as you are
> and I'm as interested in getting rid of it as you are. However, I know
> from personal experience there are a lot of good people in science also.
> And they are conscientiously working hard and ethically to accomplish
> something worthwhile. You don't help those people by unequivocally
> condemning the whole scientific enterprise.
> > There is a new breed of scientist out there practicing a new type
> > of science... The Science of the 90's - and it's not all about
> > nobel and great pursuits for the greater good of all mankind.
> > It's about self-interest, ego, greed and politics. Competition
> > instead of cooperation. And quantity over quality of work.
> > With all due respect sir, the whole system
> > (funding/grants/APR/patents) *is* a breeding ground for
> > corruption... and the honor system just isn't good enough anymore.
> One would have to conclude from this statement that either your whole
> experience in science has been uniformly negative or you have a real
> talent for seeing only the negative. Either way, its unfortunate.
> Regardless, the few people out there who are trying to do good science
> will carry on.
> Greg Harriman
We sure will. Thanks, Greg, for yet another good crop of comments and
Dr. Louis H. Ferland
Centre de Recherche, Hotel-Dieu de Montreal
Dept de Nutrition, Universite de Montreal
Phone: (514) 843-2757 FAX: (514) 843-2719
More information about the Bioforum