Criticism Builds Over Nature Investigation

Criticism Builds Over Nature Investigation AUTHOR:BERNARD DIXON Date: September 05, 1988 There may be no solution that can’t be diluted, but this is one controversy that won’t die out; Maddox vs. Benveniste LONDON--La'affaire Benveniste has been this summer’s, best soap opera—another thrilling episode in “As the World of Science Thins.” Who could have imagined that Jacques Benveniste, a scientist at a prestigious French government laboratory would claim to have proven the central—and dubious—tenet of homeopathy, in effect that water has memory? Or that Nature, one of the world’s most respected science journals, would publish the research, while editorializing that the results were “unbelievable”? Or that Nature editor John Maddox would then descend on Benveniste’s lab with “fraudbuster” Walter Stewart and professional magician James Randi, conduct a week’s worth of experiments, and denounce the original paper as a “delusion”? Yet it did happen. And the bizarre events have left many scientists shaking their heads. “Nature no longer behaves like a serious scientific journal,” says Rockefeller University geneticist Norton Zinder. “It’s extremely sad that John Maddox has become involved in such a circus,” adds sociologist and parascience-watcher Harry Collins of the University of Bath, ‘The whole thing is very bad for science.” The science community has some pointed questions for Nature. Why did the journal publish Benveniste’s paper, which purported to show that antibody solutions diluted so many times that antibody molecules were absent retained biological activity, before conducting its own investigation? And why did Maddox himself lead the team, instead of turning it over to an immunologist? Ironically, it was Science et Vie, a French consumer science magazine known to be a gadfly of the paranormal, which reacted as many scientists had expected Nature to behave; it commissioned a study by a respected allergist that was unable to duplicate Benveniste’s results (see “French Scientists" ,“ below). “No one believes that Benveniste is correct,” says Zinder, “But Nature’s approach to his work has given him an out. He can—and did—cry foul” But beyond offering a golden opportunity for scientists to criticize a powerful journal, the Benveniste affair raises a larger question about the process of science. Just what is the obligation of leading journals to publish work that is out of the mainstream? By not doing so, journals—and science in general—might be suppressing truly innovative and revolutionary work. On the other hand, printing unorthodox ideas gives them an “official” imprimatur that later research might. prove unwarranted, thus fueling pseudoscience. it is a dilemma that Nature has faced before (see “A Brief ..... . page 5) and which now prompts support for the journal’s current actions from Stephen Lock, editor of the British Medical Journal. “I cannot understand why anyone is worried about the possibility that Nature has carried an erroneous paper, or angry about their investigative critique,” says Lock, “We could do with less pussy footing in science publishing and more open criticism, more letters in Nature attacking points made in the journal. It’s nonsense to suppose that the appearance of a paper in a prestigious publication bestows some sort of authentication or imprimatur. Many papers have been forgotten anyway 10 or 15 years after their appearance. They have never been cited and are only good for wrapping up fish and chips. The whole affair may indeed be forgotten a decade hence, but now the storm still rages. After making a few general statements, Maddox conveniently went on vacation and remained unreachable for detailed queries. So the questions have been falling on Nature’s deputy editor Peter Newmark. By some accounts, Newmark has not seen totally eye to eye with Maddox. But he still staunchly comes to the defense of the magazine’s actions. “Benveniste had been communicating with us for nearly two years,” explains Newmark. “He had responded to many suggestions from referees, and our referees could not see what the flaw was. The work came from part of the prestigious Institut National de Ia Santa et de Ia Recherche Médicale (INSERM). And Benveniste had started to give his story to the French press. We concluded, therefore, that we must publish the report, so that everyone could see Benveniste’s results and his methods in detail. We also decided, however, that a team with appropriately independent and critical skills should scrutinize his work” But why publish the paper on June 30, immediately before Maddox, Randi, and Stewart began their investigation? “Because it seemed highly likely that the results of our scrutiny would persuade us not to print the paper,” says Newmark. ‘Then we could have been accused of suppressing an important contribution to science. So we resolved to allow Benveniste his say beforehand” To a number of experts contacted by The Scientist, however, the nature of the investigation and the timing of the articles seemed calculated to attract the maximum publicity rather than to further the cause of science. “By doing things in sequence, Maddox has given the whole business a higher profile than perhaps it deserved,” says medical journal editor Lock. Certainly, Maddox’s choice of companions raised eyebrows. Walter Stewart of the National Institutes of Health is already on many scientists’ blacklist for his role as self-appointed investigator of fraud and misconduct. As for ‘The Amazing Randi, even his efforts to expose the pseudoscience in the claims of paranormalists and faith healers haven’t won him respectability among some researchers. Harry Collins, for example, believes that magicians can offer useful advice in such cases. But, he says, “someone who earns his living by professional deception should never be named as a joint author in a scientific journal. That is bound to do an intellectual disservice to our conventional standards of investigation.” Collins points to his experience in 1977, when Randi visited Bath to assist in studies on alleged paranormal metal bending. “The whole atmosphere he generated here was one of a crusade. It was not objective science. Randi wanted victory, and was very antagonistic. If John Maddox had read the account I wrote, he would have had second thoughts about his approach.” Benveniste himself responding to Nature’s critique, echoes Collins in complaining bitterly about the “torrent of intense and constant suspicion, fear and psychological and intellectual pressure unfit for scientific work” which swept through his laboratory during the investigation. Other scientists, notably NIH immunologist Henry Metzger, have observed that Maddox’s handling of the probe exacerbated the circus atmosphere engendered by the original paper itself. “It was a bit of a caper to get this particular gang together and take them to Paris,” admits one Nature editor. Reached briefly just before he went on vacation, Maddox shrugged off the criticism. “Is not a little of a ‘circus atmosphere’ inescapable on these occasions?” he asked. Indeed, Maddox is not averse to generating a little publicity and excitement with his magazine. It is no secret among Nature staffers and those who know Maddox well that the former Manchester Guardian science correspondent retains the instincts of a journalist and is as anxious as the next newshound to be first with a sensational story. Asked whether a desire for publicity figured in the journal’s deliberations, deputy editor Peter Newmark said that this would not have been a sensible consideration. “I wasn’t directly involved in our decisions about timing, and unfortunately John is not now available to answer the question. But it was quite clear from the outset that if we were to attract attention, by no means all of the publicity was likely to be good publicity. The journal did what it considered right, and it’s hardly surprising that we have been criticized since.” It’s too soon to tell how Nature will fare on the larger question of how well science has been served by the Benveniste affair. Proponents of homeopathy are already trumpeting the paper’s publication as an authentication of their unorthodox methods: ‘The emergence of homeopathy into the arena of scientific medicine is now irreversible,” wrote veterinarian K.J. Biddis in a recent issue of The Veterinary Record (volume 123, page 186). Such claims are obviously un- warranted, says Newmark. “But we certainly don’t have the power to prevent selective reporting and distorted use of the material.” The fury of Nature’s attack on Benveniste has prompted some scientists to suggest that the journal is not open enough to unorthodox ideas. “If journals try to suppress or discredit heterodoxy, they will suppress both good and bad,” says Harry Collins. “Marie Curie and her work would have fared very badly if she’d been treated like Benveniste.” Fortunately, past examples suggest that the whole storm will blow over soon. Certainly neither science nor Nature has been seriously harmed by the journal’s previous forays into the realm of the “unbelievable.” And some scientists have had the good sense to turn to wit instead of spleen. Take NIH’s Henry Metzger who tried unsuccessfully to duplicate Benveniste’s finding that water retains a “memory” of molecules it once contained. “It’s a shame,” Metzger sighs. “It still takes a full teaspoon ofsugar to sweeten our tea.”

Criticism Builds Over Nature Investigation

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of