Why Scientists Need To Repent

Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine’ just persons, which need no repentance. New Testament, Luke, XV, 7 Heaven, as well as his scientific colleagues, greet with joy the scientist who is willing to amend previously published observations. No one I consistently correct; even a Noble laureate may end up with egg on his face. Yet regretfully, there is already procedure for altering one's earlier communications on the scientific literature. At present, an au thor has the choice of either writing another article or sending letter to the editor. Since most “er rors” are relatively minor, they do not warrant the effort of another article. Letters to the editor, on the other hand, are notorious for being overlooked. As a solution, I propose that a “section of recantation, retraction, and modification” should be established in each journal. My experience is in clinical and research medicine. Chats with basic scientists in biomedicine, as well as in the physical and the computer sciences, however, show that they too are in the same predicament. All of us have a need for a rapid mechanism to correct or modify published information. My proposed section would also serve as the forum for retracting fraudulent papers and would save us the months or years that are now required to correct the record. The concept of recantation has brought a wry smile to the face of every scientist with whom I have spoken. There usually is a wistful, wishful gleam in their eyes. They say things like: “How nice it would have been to correct the record,” or “I could have saved myself weeks of work, had I only known..." The problems arise when procedures, data, or medications do not live up to the expectations of the original article. Communication is not usually a problem if the information is dangerous or lifethreatening. We have an immediate recall or correction, via express mail, editorials in the literature, or notices from the Food and Drug Administration. The difficulty arises with those less dramatic, but scientifically misleading, flaws that crop up at a later date in even the most carefully planned and executed work. The medical research literature offers many such examples. For instance, during the early development of ear surgery for deafness caused by otosclerosis, the stapes bone was freed with a fine needle to improve hearing. A major accomplishment in our treatment of deafness, it did develop one flaw. The stapes reflexed within a year or two so that the deafness recurred. By the time this fact reached the literature, thousands of procedures had to be redone. A brief paragraph in a recantation section would have avoided this, since newer, more successful operations were then available. Similarly, we make offhand statements at scientific colloquia, which we might wish to correct at a later date. For example, one internationally known surgeon spoke against the use of fine-needle biopsies. However, he changed his mind later on. His stature is such that a retraction may have encouraged surgeons not to delay using this excellent procedure. A prominent ophthalmologist recalls an early paper that showed that radiation therapy cured a particularly malignant tumor of the eye. Several years later he found that the "cure" was actually a lessening of the growth in an already slow-growing tumor. It took more years before the literature was aware of this. An educator in the sciences, Harold Luxenberg of California State University, has cynically likened the constant promise of technological advances, such as X-ray lasers and SDI systems, to the production of vaporware for computers; always promised, but seldom forthcoming. Announcements, via scientific articles, are prematurely made to assure the author’s precedence in the field. This action, however, does not have the innocent rivalry of the business world, where merely money is involved. When it happens in science, society stands to lose a great deal more. Not only is money lost, but a significant part of a scientist’s life and work is wasted if he is directed down the wrong path by premature or erroneous data. On the other hand, candid authors may later find that their data is equivocal. There would then be the recantation section available to correct the record. The recantation section could also be used to alert scientists to fraudulent papers. While fraud is not pervasive in the sciences, setting the record straight in timely fashion when fraud does occur is currently difficult, if not impossible. And as a result, fraudulent information endures to misguide scientists. Editors, upon the advice of their attorneys, are unwilling to correct the record for fear of lawsuits, according to a story in The Scientist (March 7, 1988, page 1). Benjamin Lewin, editor of Cell, has stated in Science (Nov. 6,1987, pages 813-814) that “it is not the responsibil- ity of the scientific journal to editorialize on the accuracy of published research,” and that “journals are really dependent on other researchers in the field to correct the record.” This statement abolishes the traditional duties of an editor, which include editorializing and controlling the editorial content of the literature. As one example, the allegedly fraudulent works of Robert A. Slutsky have not yet been campletely retracted. This underscores the need for a recantation section. In medical school, I was taught that one could learn more during an exchange with a colleague over a drink than by reading the literature. The section of recantation and retraction would offer the author the opportunity to be as frank as in a “bull session” but with a larger audience. It would require almost no time, since only a paragraph or two would be needed. The ready availability of such a “bastion of truth” should make us more secure. I can foresee that with usage it would eventually become required reading to keep us au courant. Who knows, one might even imagine a day when the mark of the really sincere scientist would be many such citations. Alex Weisskopf, MD., is a professor of otolaryngology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Why Scientists Need To Repent

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of