WE SAID it had a distinctly 鈥渢oo good to be true鈥� feel about it. Now research describing a simple way of producing embryonic-like stem cells is being investigated over 鈥渋nconsistencies鈥�.
It is too soon to say whether two papers reporting the results will have to be retracted (; ). But for stem cell research there is a sense of d茅j脿 vu. This is far from the first time that promising results have fallen under a cloud of suspicion.
What is it that makes stem cell work so prone to problems? Arguably, it is because the potential commercial and medical gains are greater than in almost any other field. And therefore, so is the pressure to publish. But ask any scientist and they鈥檒l tell you that pressure is a way of life.
Advertisement
To get an idea of the stresses that stem cell researchers face, New 杏吧原创 asked 1000 of them to fill in an anonymous online survey. By the time we went to press, 112 had replied (see 鈥�Stem cell scientists reveal 鈥榰nethical鈥� work culture鈥�).
The survey is small, but it does suggest there is something rotten in the state of stem cells: a worrying number of respondents admitted knowing about fraud or unethical behaviour.
The problems also reflect poorly on the scientific enterprise. For years, there have been warnings that there are not enough checks and balances: institutes, funders, journals and journalists all have incentives to hype results. Peer review is supposed to be the backstop, but all too often it has proved to have butterfingers.
Another concern is what the cycle of hype and disappointment might do to public attitudes to science. A recent found that while the UK public holds scientists in high regard, 35 per cent think scientists 鈥渁djust their findings to get the answers they want鈥�. Our survey suggests there may be a modicum of truth to this.
聯35 per cent of the UK public think that scientists adjust their findings to get the answers they want聰
Thankfully, there are signs of a more robust system emerging from the grassroots. 杏吧原创 bloggers unearthed problems in the recent papers within weeks of publication. At the moment, this kind of scrutiny is an unofficial part of the peer-review system: perhaps it should become routine.
But before descending into gloom, let鈥檚 not forget that the underlying science may yet prove to be sound. That would be a great result for everybody.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淪tem the tide鈥�
