Reporters Find Science Journals Harder to Trust, but Not Easy to Verify - New York Times

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/business/media/13journal.html?ei=5088 & en=f

e0dcc3b571e0fe6 & ex=1297486800 & partner=rssnyt & emc=rss & pagewanted=all

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

----------

February 13, 2006

Reporters Find Science Journals Harder to Trust, but Not Easy to Verify

By JULIE BOSMAN

When the journal Science recently retracted two papers by the South Korean

researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, it officially confirmed what he had denied

for months: Dr. Hwang had fabricated evidence that he had cloned human cells.

But the editors of Science were not alone in telling the world of Dr.

Hwang's research. Newspapers, wire services and television networks had

initially trumpeted the news, as they often do with information served up

by the leading scientific journals.

Now news organizations say they are starting to look at the science

journals a bit more skeptically.

" My antennae are definitely up since this whole thing unfolded, " said Rob

Stein, a science reporter for The Washington Post. " I'm reading papers a

lot more closely than I had in the past, just to sort of satisfy myself

that any individual piece of research is valid. But we're still in sort of

the same situation that the journal editors are, which is that if someone

wants to completely fabricate data, it's hard to figure that out. "

But other than heightened skepticism, not a lot has changed in how

newspapers treat scientific journals. Indeed, newspaper editors openly

acknowledge their dependence on them. At The Los Angeles Times, at least

half of the science stories that run on the front page come directly from

journals, said Dunn, the paper's science editor. Gideon Gil, the

health and science editor for The Boston Globe, said that two of the three

science stories that run on a typical day were from research that appeared

in journals.

Beyond newspapers, papers from journals are routinely picked up by

newsweeklies, network news, talk radio and Web sites.

" They are the way science is conducted, they're the way people share

information, they're the best approximation of acceptance by knowledgeable

people, " said Chang, science editor for The New York Times. " We do

rely on them for the starting point of many of our stories, and that will

not change. "

There are limits to the vetting that science reporters, who are generally

not scientists themselves, can do. Most journal articles have embargoes

attached, giving reporters several days to call specialists in the field,

check footnotes on an article and scrutinize the results.

" Scientific discoveries are more difficult because they often require in

the generalist reporter a good deal of study, follow-up interviews and some

guidance on how to make sense of technical matters, " said Roy ,

a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, which studies journalism. " But I

think the scandals do require both a new level of skepticism on the part of

the reporter and also maybe some new protocols between scientists and

journalists. "

The Hwang case was not the first time journals had been duped: recently,

editors at The New England Journal of Medicine said they suspected two

cancer papers they published contained fabricated data. In December, the

same journal said that the authors of a 2000 study on the painkiller Vioxx

had omitted the fact that several patients had had heart attacks while

taking the drug in a trial. A study on the painkiller Celebrex that

appeared in The Journal of the American Medical Association was discredited

when it was discovered that the authors had submitted only six months of

data, instead of the 12 months of data they had collected.

While the journals have a peer review process that is in part meant to

filter out fallacious papers by checking research techniques and

conclusions, perhaps the greatest difficulty for science reporters is

trying to catch what journal editors have missed.

After hearing the news of Dr. Hwang's fabrications, Mr. Gil of The Globe

said he immediately remembered his newspaper's coverage of the stem cell

papers.

" We were blown away, in part because we had written those stories on Page

1, " Mr. Gil said. " And when we wrote them, we called the leading experts in

the world on all this embryonic stem cell stuff, who are here in Boston.

And they were as hoodwinked as anybody else. "

Despite the fraud cases, most of what the journals publish is basically

credible, said Perlman, the science editor of The San Francisco

Chronicle. Among the most prestigious science journals that reporters

consult regularly are Nature, Science, The New England Journal of Medicine

and The Journal of the American Medical Association.

" I think they and we have been burned enough that they're making efforts, "

Mr. Perlman said. " They're being more careful now, and I think reporters

are too. I definitely have more of a 'Hey, let's look more carefully'

attitude now that I did 5 or 10 years ago. "

Kennedy, the editor of Science, said in a statement in December that

the journal itself was not an investigative body. But when reporting on

journal findings, most news outlets fail to caution that studies must be

replicated to be truly authenticated.

" Beyond Hwang, the more fundamental issue is that journals do not and

cannot guarantee the truth of what they publish, " said Wade, a

science reporter for The New York Times. " Publication of a paper only means

that, in the view of the referees who green-light it, it is interesting and

not obviously false. In other words, all of the results in these journals

are tentative. "

The journals' own peer review processes, which are intended to be the first

barrier against fraud, have come under criticism lately. A cover story in

the February issue of The Scientist said that the top-tier journals were

receiving more submissions every year, overtaxing peer reviewers and

weakening the screening process.

After the Hwang scandal, Science announced it was considering a set of

changes to better prevent fraud: Dr. Kennedy said in January that new rules

could include " requiring all authors to detail their specific contributions

to the research submitted, and to sign statements of concurrence with the

conclusions of the work, " as well as " implementing improved methods of

detecting image alteration, although it appears improbable that they would

have detected problems in this particular case. " (Through a spokeswoman,

Dr. Kennedy declined to be interviewed and said the editors were currently

conducting a review of the episode.)

Some newspapers have adopted guidelines of their own to check for conflicts

of interest involving authors of journal articles. The Globe instituted

guidelines last July requiring reporters to ask researchers about their

financial ties to studies, and to include that information in resulting

articles. In its weekly health and science section, The Globe outlines any

shortcomings of a study under the heading " Cautions. "

Kit Frieden, the health and science editor for The Associated Press, said:

" We've always had our own peer review process, where on the major studies

we seek outside expert comment. We've always regarded scientific research

cautiously because mistakes can be made, and I don't think that's changed. "

The growing competition for the most important research among the journals

may contribute to mistakes and fabrications, even in the most prestigious

of the bunch. But in the end, the severe consequences of presenting

fraudulent research generally act as a deterrent, said Mr. Dunn of The Los

Angeles Times.

" Unlike financial fraud, where you can bamboozle somebody of their money

and disappear and then start over again, in science the researchers are in

one place, " he said. " If they get caught in this type of thing, their

careers are over. "

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm