诚信制度之危

1诚信制度之危[DishonoringtheHonorSystemcientificreviewisnotdesignedtocatchcheats.ButtheSouthKoreancloningscandalsuggeststhatthejournalsNatureandSciencemaybetoopowerfulindecidingwhatresearchreachesthepublic.?xml:namespaceprefix=ons=urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office/科学评审的本意并非是要抓骗子。然而，韩国克隆丑闻说明，在决定将哪些科研成果公诸于众方面，《自然》和《科学》杂志或许有些过于强大了。JanHendrikSchon'ssuccessseemedtoogoodtobetrue,anditwas.InonlyfouryearsasaphysicistatBellLaboratories,Schon,32,hadco-authored90scientificpapers—oneevery16days—detailingnewdiscoveriesinsuperconductivity,lasers,nanotechnologyandquantumphysics.Thisoutputastonishedhiscolleagues,andmadethemsuspicious.Whenoneco-workernoticedthatthesametableofdataappearedintwoseparatepapers—whichalsohappenedtoappearinthetwomostprestigiousscientificjournalsintheworld,ScienceandNature-thejigwasup.InOctober2002,aBellLabsinvestigationfoundthatSchonhadfalsifiedandfabricateddata.Hiscareerasascientistwasfinished.IfitsoundsalotlikethefallofHwangWooSuk—theSouthKoreanresearcherwhofabricatedhisevidenceaboutcloninghumancells—itis.Scientificscandals,whichareasoldasscienceitself,tendtofollowsimilarpatternsofhubrisandcomeuppance.Afterwards,colleagueswringtheirhandsandwonderhowsuchmalfeasancecanbeavoidedinthefuture.Butitneverisentirely.Scienceisbuiltonthehonorsystem;themethodofpeer-review,inwhichmanuscriptsareevaluatedbyexpertsinthefield,isnotmeanttocatchcheats.Inrecentyears,ofcourse,thepressureonscientiststopublishinthetopjournalshasincreased,makingthejournalsthatmuchmorecrucialtocareersuccess.ThequestionsraisedanewbyHwang'sfallarewhetherNatureandSciencehavebecometoopowerfulasarbitersofwhatsciencereachesthepublic,andwhetherthejournalsareuptotheirtaskasgatekeepers.Eachscientificspecialtyhasitsownsetofjournals.PhysicistshavePhysicalReviewLetters,cellbiologistshaveCell,neuroscientistshaveNeuron,andsoforth.ScienceandNature,though,aretheonlytwomajorjournalsthatcoverthegamutofscientificdisciplines,frommeteorologyandzoologytoquantumphysicsandchemistry.Asaresult,journalistslooktothemeachweekforthecreamofthecropofnewsciencepapers.Andscientistslooktothejournalsinparttoreachjournalists.Whydotheycare?Competitionforgrantshasgottensofiercethatscientistshavesoughtpopularrenowntogainanedgeovertheirrivals.Publicationinspecializedjournalswillwintheaccoladesofacademicsandsatisfythepublish-or-perishimperative,butScienceandNaturecomewiththeadded2bonusofpotentiallygettingyourpaperwrittenupinTheNewYorkTimesandotherpublications.ScientistsarealsotryingtoreachotherscientiststhroughScienceandNature,notjustthepublic.Thelinebetweenpopularandprofessionalnotorietyisnotdistinct.ScientiststendtopaymoreattentiontotheBigTwothantootherjournals.Whenmorescientistsknowaboutaparticularpaper,they'remoreapttociteitintheirownpapers.Beingoft-citedwillincreaseascientist'sImpactFactor,ameasureofhowoftenpapersarecitedbypeers.FundingagenciesusetheImpactFactorasaroughmeasureoftheinfluenceofscientiststhey'reconsideringsupporting.BecauseNatureandSciencepapershavemorevisibility,thenumberofsubmissionsisgrowing,saytheeditors.Naturenowgets10,000manuscriptsayear,andthatfigureisrising,sayseditor-in-chiefPhiipCampbellviaemail.Thispartlyreflectstheincreaseinscientificactivityaroundtheworld,hesays.Italsonodoubtreflectstheincreasingandsometimesexcessiveemphasisamongstfundingagenciesandgovernmentsonpublicationmeasures,suchasthetypicalratesofcitationofjournals.Whateverthereasons,thewhimsoftheeditorsatScienceandNatureloomlargeformanyscientists.Wheneithermagazineisconsideringapaperforpublication,theauthorsaretoldnottospeaktothepresslesttheywanttoriskrejection.Everyscientistshatesthemandlovesthem,saysaprominentscientistwhowouldnotspeakforattributionforfearofoffendingtheeditors.Wehatethembecauseit'ssopoliticaltogetanarticleinthem.FranklyI'mastonishedatsomeofthethingstheyaccept,andsomeofthethingstheyreject.Whethertheclamortoappearinthesejournalshasanybearingontheirabilitytocatchfraudisanothermatter.Thefactis,fraudisterrificallyhardtospot.ConsidertheprocessScienceusedtoevaluateHwang's2005article.Scienceeditorsrecognizedthemanuscript'simportalmostassoonasitarrived.Aspartofthestandardprocedure,theysentittotwomembersofitsBoardofReviewingEditors,whorecommendedthatitgooutforpeerreview(about30percentofmanuscriptspassthistest).Thisrecommendationwasmadenotonthescientificvalidityofthepaper,butonitsnovelty,originality,andtrendiness,saysDenisDuboule,ageneticistatthe?xml:namespaceprefix=st1ns=urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags/UniversityofGenevaandamemberofScience'sBoardofReviewingEditors,intheJanuary6issueofScience.(EditorswouldnotcommentforthisstoryaheadofthecompletionofSeoulNationalUniversity'sinvestigation,whichwasreleasedtoday.ThepanelfoundthatHwanghadfabricatedalloftheevidenceforresearchthatclaimedtohaveclonedhumancells,butthathehadsuccessfullyclonedthedogSnuppy.)3Afterthis,Sciencesentthepapertothreestem-cellexperts,whohadaweektolookitover.Theircommentswerefavorable.Howweretheytoknowthatthedatawasfraudulent?Youlookatthedataanddonotassumeit'sfraud,saysonereviewer,anonymously,inScience.