Letters

Illogical Pathways Eugene Garfield in his editorial on “Recognizing the Role of Chance” (May 2, page 10) touches upon a point of more realistically reporting the role of serendipity in the research process. This is only one aspect of the publication of scientific papers that needs more discussion and consensus among scientists. I have long felt that the gloss of a hypothetico-deductive style in a research paper may overstate the degree of support for an author’s claim, if the data were actually obtained by a combination of chance events and inconclusive experiments. It is often said that the pressure on scientists to publish papers arises from the need to obtain research grants and to advance their careers. I believe that, in addition, there are more mundane pressures to publish a paper of partly finished research. Such a paper can result when a student’s M.S. or Ph.D. thesis has been judged acceptable, when a postdoctoral fellow has completed his or her two-to-three-year stint, or when the principal investigator is invited to participate in a conference on the condition that he or she will contribute to a published document. In all these cases, it seems highly likely that the results and conclusions, as finally formulated and blessed with expressions of statistical significance, do not represent the sometimes illogical pathways of reaching the end of the research process. Those scientists who suspect that the discrepancy between the account in the paper and the actual research process is serious may think of the publication process as borderline “fraudulent.” Those who believe that the format of the paper is irrelevant may label it “immensely functional.” I believe that we do not know, and find it amazing that this issue is hardly ever discussed among scientists. There is not even a tentative consensus about what should be taught to our students and where the borders of ethical practices are located. We appear to be rather unconcerned about setting standards for composing the research paper so that it realistically portrays the validity and degree of support for our conclusions. DONALD B. ZILVERSMIT Division of Nutritional Sciences Cornell University Ithaca, N.Y 14853 Too Parochial? When I first discovered The Scientist about a year ago,I felt very enthusiastic about this new publication. Finally there was a forum for the science professional that not only filled gaps in science and technology policy reporting, but that had a strong international focus in addition. This focus included a series of articles and interviews reflecting Third World science and scientists usually neglected in other publications. However, the last editions, including the first one with a “new look,” somehow lost this perspective, being centered on American—and to some extent British—science and technology policy only. The globalization of markets, technologies, and technological impacts require an international horizon, particularly on the part of the science professional. The Scientist would bean ideal publication to fill the existing gaps in this area like it does in others. DIETER KOENIG U.N. Centre for Science and Technology for Development One U.N. Plaza New York, N.Y 10017 [Ed. note: The Scientist continues to be interested in publishing news of the science profession outside the English-speaking world. In fact, the editors are currently seeking to identify first-rate science and business journalists in Third World countries. If our readers know of any such reporters who can write in English, we invite them to forward the names to the editor.] Quackbusting Tales Thank you for your kind mention of me in the article on “Quackbusters” (The Scientist, May 16, 1988, page 1), but you have exaggerated my age. Also, methotrexate was invented, not by me, but by Drs. James M. Smith and Donna Cosulich, patent application files October 22,1947. Legal proceedings by governmental agencies against health fraud are another aspect of “quackbusting.” I have served as an expert witness in such proceedings on several occasions, including those involving claims for anti-cancer effects of laetrile and high doses of vitamin C. So far, I have always been on the winning side, including two times in which defendants received jail sentences. THOMAS JUKES Department of Biophysics and Medical Physics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, Calif. 94720

Letters

Jun 26, 1988

Illogical Pathways

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of