mBio: Gender Analysis Of Scientific Misconduct

 

UPDATE:  The link to this study on mBio is now live:

Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct

Ferric C. Fang, Joan W. Bennett and Arturo Casadevall

doi:10.1128/mBio.00640-12

 

# 6873

 

Later today the open access online journal mBio ® will publish an analysis of scientific misconduct - written Joan W. Bennett, Ferric C. Fang, and Arturo Casadevall - based on data from the Office of Research Integrity. 

 

Scientific misconduct - which includes fabrication, falsification or plagiarism – has been on the rise over the past decade.

 

In a presentation made last March (see Dysfunctional Science) before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, journal editors Casadevall and Fang warned that number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold over the last decade, while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%.

 

A pair of related editorials, penned by Casadevall and Fang, appeared at the same time in the journal Infection and Immunity.

Reforming Science: Structural Reforms

Ferric C. Fang, Editor in Chief, Infection and Immunity and Arturo Casadevall, Editor in Chief, mBio

Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms

Arturo Casadevall, Editor in Chief, mBio and Ferric C. Fang, Editor in Chief, Infection and Immunity

 

 

We get a preview of today’s analysis from a press release from the American Society for Microbiology. The study can be viewed later today at the mBio website http://mbio.asm.org/.

 

 

Men more likely to commit research misconduct than female counterparts

It's not hard to see that men are more likely to engage in risky behaviors than women, or that crime rates are many times higher among men, but this tendency to break the rules also extends to male scientists, according to a study to be published on January 22 in mBio®, the online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology. An analysis of data from the Office of Research Integrity reveals that men commit research misconduct more often than their female peers, a gender disparity that is most pronounced among senior scientists.

 

"Not only are men committing more research misconduct," says Joan W. Bennett of Rutgers University, a co-author on the study. "Senior men are most likely to do so."

 

In the study Bennett teamed with Ferric C. Fang of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and Arturo Casadevall of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, and scrutinized data from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, an organization that investigates allegations of misconduct in research supported by the Department of Health and Human Services. "Misconduct" includes such infractions as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism.

 

They found that out of the 227 individuals sanctioned for committing scientific misconduct between 1994 and the present, 66% were male, a number that far outstrips their overall representation among researchers in the life sciences. And although men represent about 70% of faculty in the life sciences, 88% of faculty who committed misconduct were male.

 

If the fact that men are more likely to commit scientific misconduct is less than surprising, Casadevall says, what did surprise the authors is the fact that misconduct is not confined to inexperienced, early-career strivers.

 

"When you look at the numbers, you see that the problem of misconduct carries through the entire career of scientists," says Casadevall. Faculty (32%) and other research personnel (28%) represented a total of 60% of cases, whereas students (16%) and post-doctoral fellows (25%) were sanctioned in only 41% of cases.

(Continue . . . )

The damage done to the public’s perception and trust of science due to misconduct and fraud is difficult to calculate, but overall the public’s opinion of science and scientists has taken quite a beating in recent years.

 

According to a recent UK poll (Public Attitudes To Science, May 2011):

While the majority of respondents (79%) believed science has, on the whole, made our lives easier .  . . .  astonishingly, just 54% believed that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect.

 

One only has to look at the deep divisions over climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, nuclear power, and genetically modified food crops to realize just how wide this rift between the public, and scientists, has become.

 

Every day the world becomes more dependant on technological solutions to solve our ever growing list of social, economic, and environmental problems.

 

The need for the public’s trust and confidence in the scientific process has never been greater.

 

If that trust is squandered through scientific fraud or misconduct, it isn’t just the scientific community that will suffer, but society as a whole.

HHMI’s Holiday Lecture Series: 2012

Credit HHMI

# 6810

 

A couple of years ago I highlighted an online (and free)  holiday lecture series  offered by HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) that focused on Infectious Diseases. These four (roughly 1 hour lectures) were geared for and delivered to an audience of high school science students.

 

Which means that . . . while informative . . .  you didn’t have to be a full fledged microbiologist or virologist in order to follow along.

 

These lecture series are a yearly event, and over the past 18 years they have focused on a variety of topics, including: Cancer, Genomics, Biodiversity, Immunology, Neuroscience, and Infectious Diseases.

 

This year, the focus is on our changing planet, with four lectures available.

 

2012 Holiday Lectures

Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future

The 2012 Holiday Lectures are viewable via Flash streaming (720p HD or 360p SD) or in an iOS MP4 download (360p SD) compatible with iPhone, iPod, and iPad.

Lecture 1: The Deep History of a Living Planet, by Andrew Knoll, Ph.D.

 Lecture 2: Building Scientific Knowledge: The Story of Plate Tectonics, by Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D.

 Lecture 3: Earth's Climate: Back to the Future, by Daniel Schrag, Ph.D.

 Lecture 4: Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?, by Naomi Oreskes, Ph.D.
 

You’ll find a variety of lecture series in the archives, along with a number of `informal talks’.

 

These videos are a wonderful resource, with dozens of hours available on subjects ranging from genetics to anthropology, and everything in between.

 

The rest of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute  website is well worth exploring as well, for it contains numerous short science films, virtual laboratories, and interactive mini-lessons, all designed to feed your `inner science geek’.

 

Many of these videos, lectures, and podcasts are also accessible via iTunes.

 

Highly recommended, whether you are a young student just starting out, or an old science geek like myself.

Dysfunctional Science

 

 

# 6246

 

 

Six weeks ago in Science at the Crossroads, I wrote about the decline the public’s trust in science.

 

While I cited a number of reasons for this disturbing trend, prime among them has been the abrupt rise in the number of scientific papers that have been retracted – sometimes for outright fraud - over the past decade.

 

Today the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals  made a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, where they warn of a growing dysfunction in scientific research, and call this rise in retracted studies a symptom of a much larger problem.

 

You’ll find detailed and thought provoking editorials authored by Ferric C. Fang, Editor in Chief, Infection and Immunity and Arturo Casadevall, Editor in Chief, mBio on the challenges facing researchers in the current issue of Infection and Immunity (IAI).

 

The press release from the American Society for Microbiology follows, with the links to a pair of Infection and Immunity editorials on the subject at the end.

 

Highly recommended.

 

 

 

Has modern science become dysfunctional?

The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.

 

"Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science," says Ferric Fang, editor-in-chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), who is speaking today at the meeting of the Committee of Science, Technology, and Law of the NAS along with Arturo Casadevall, editor-in -chief of mBio®, the ASM's online, open-access journal.

 

In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society's confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.

 

More concerning, say the editors, is that this trend may be a symptom of a growing dysfunction in the biomedical sciences, one that needs to be addressed soon. At the heart of the problem is an economic incentive system fueling a hypercompetitive environment that is fostering poor scientific practices, including frank misconduct.

 

The root of the problem is a lack of sufficient resources to sustain the current enterprise. Too many researchers are competing for too little funding, creating a survival-of-the-fittest, winner-take-all environment where researchers increasingly feel pressure to publish, especially in high-prestige journals.

 

 

"The surest ticket to getting a grant or job is getting published in a high profile journal," says Fang. "This is an unhealthy belief that can lead a scientist to engage in sensationalism and sometimes even dishonest behavior to salvage their career."

 

Funding is just one aspect of a very complex problem Casadevall and Fang see growing in the biomedical sciences. In a series of editorials in the journal Infection and Immunity they describe their views in detail, arguing that science is not as healthy as it could be or as it needs to be to effectively address the challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.

 

"Incentives in the current system place scientists under tremendous stress, discourage cooperation, encourage poor scientific practices and deter new talent from entering the field," they write. "It is time for a discussion of how the scientific enterprise can be reformed to become more effective and robust."

 

The answers, they write, must come not only from within the scientific community but from society as a whole that has helped create the current incentive structure that is fostering the dysfunction. In the editorials they outline a series of recommended reforms including methodological, cultural and structural changes.

 

"In the end, it is not the number of high-impact-factor papers, prizes or grant dollars that matters most, but the joys of discovery and the innumerable contributions both large and small that one makes through contact with other scientists," they write. "Only science can provide solutions to many of the most urgent needs of contemporary society. A conversation on how to reform science should begin now."

 

###

Copies of the Infection and Immunity editorials can be found online at

http://iai.asm.org/content/80/3/891.full

and

http://iai.asm.org/content/80/3/897.full

AAAS Webinar: Science Is Not Enough

 

 

# 6155

 

Yesterday, in Science at the Crossroads, I wrote about the public’s growing mistrust in science and in the scientific community. There are deep divisions over scientific claims of climate change, vaccine safety, the safety of genetically modified crops, and even the theory of evolution.

 

While there are many external reasons for this divide (including tabloid journalism, and the proliferation of pseudo-science on the internet), the way that scientists communicate about science is at least partially to blame.

 

The decision yesterday afternoon by the World Health Organization to hold back on the publication of controversial H5N1 research until they can `increase public awareness and understanding of this research’  would seem a tacit acknowledgment that scientists need to do a better job in communicating with the public.

 

Later today, the AAAS will webcast a plenary lecture on this very subject.

 

Science Is Not Enough: Plenary Panel and Live Webcast

18 February 2012
5:00-6:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
Vancouver Convention Centre, West Building, Ballroom C

Live-tweet your questions to #AAASmtg

 

Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges?

 

An exceptional plenary panel at the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting will explore how scientists, educators, and students can help influence public perceptions and debate about science-related global challenges.

 

The panel will be moderated by Frank Sesno, an award-winning American journalist, former CNN correspondent, anchor and Washington bureau chief, and director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

 

AAAS President Nina Fedoroff, a leading geneticist and molecular biologist, will preside. Fedoroff is Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and Willaman Professor of Life Science at Pennsylvania State University. She is also a distinguished visiting professor at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) in Saudi Arabia.

Panelists

James Hansen

Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University

Olivia Judson

Research Fellow, Imperial College London

Hans Rosling

Professor of International Health, Karolinska Institute; Co-Founder, Gapminder Foundation

 

This should make for an interesting webcast.

Science At The Crossroads

 

 

# 6151

 

 

Being born of the space age, and having cut my teeth on the science writings of Willy Ley and Isaac Asimov, I am about as `pro-science’ as one can get.  No one need convince me of the validity of evolution, or the benefits of vaccines, or that – on the whole – science has done much to better mankind.

 

Yet I’m sorry to say that the public’s perception of science, and scientists, has seen better days.

 

According to a recent UK poll (Public Attitudes To Science, May 2011), while the majority of respondents (79%) believe science has, on the whole, made our lives easier .  . . .  astonishingly, just 54% believe that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect.

 

One only has to look at the deep divisions over climate change, evolution, vaccine safety, nuclear power, and genetically modified food crops to realize just how wide this rift between the public, and scientists, has become.

 

Last year in a BBC Horizon special Science Under Attack, Nobel Prize winning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse explored some of the reasons why science, and scientists, are increasingly coming under attack.

 

While he cites many factors (including irresponsible bloggers, and tabloid journalism), he also faults scientists for their failure to communicate with the public.

 

A brief quote from near the end of the program:

 

“Scientists have forgotten that we don’t operate in an isolated bubble. We cannot take the public for granted. We have to talk to them, we have to communicate the issues. We have to earn their trust, if science really is to benefit society.”

 

While it would be nice to chalk up the public’s mistrust of science to a simple lack of communication, the truth is a bit more complicated.

Science’s record is hardly without blemish.

 

Call it the law of unintended consequences. Some ideas that seemed perfectly reasonable and rational at the time turned out to be foolish or even dangerous later.

 

A few scientific innovations that have come back to haunt us include:

 

• putting lead in paint & gasoline
• Using asbestos in ceiling tiles, insulation, and cigarette filters 
• Painting clock dials with radium paint
• Using growth enhancing antibiotics for livestock

 

We are smarter now, of course. And while it is easy to assure that we know better than to repeat the mistakes of the past, scientists are still human, and missteps will doubtless continue to occur.

 

But it isn’t just honest mistakes in science that has done damage.  Research has its dark side as well.

 

In a 2010 article appearing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, researcher R. Grant Sheen found hundreds of examples of research paper retractions over the past decade due to what he deemed to be `deliberate fraud’.

 

Add in the parade of FDA approved drugs that we’ve seen withdrawn for safety reasons after years of use, and allegations of biased industry funded clinical trials (see RCTs: All That’s Gold Standard Doesn’t Glitter), and one begins to understand why public confidence in science has flagged.

 

And while it pains me, It is hard to deny that some of this tarnish hasn’t been at least partially earned.

 

In recent months the debate over H5N1 research appears to have further polarized the public and the scientific community. 

 

Which may help explain why views, like the ones expressed in a recent New York Times Editorial (An Engineered Doomsday) - that called for a halt to this sort of work, and the destruction of the virus – seem to resonate with a substantial segment of the public. 

 

Regardless of what is ultimately decided regarding the publication of the Fouchier and Kawaoka H5N1 papers, this new era of bioengineering and life sciences brings with it a host of thorny issues that must be addressed if the public is to regain confidence in science.

 

Among them:

• How are we to handle this brave new world of life sciences, where new viruses and other life forms can be created in the laboratory?
• Who decides what is appropriate, or safe research?
• Who decides what should be published, and who should have access to redacted information?
• What laboratory protocols and protections are necessary for working the the H5N1 virus?

 

Daunting questions all, and likely to spur vigorous (even heated) academic debate. 

 

We find ourselves at at turning point in science, and potentially, in the perception of science as well.

 

How openly, honestly, and civilly this debate is conducted, and most importantly - how well these complex issues and subsequent decisions are conveyed to the public - will doubtless influence how the public will perceive the scientific community going forward.

 

There is much ground to be either gained or lost in the public’s mind, depending on how well this is handled. And a lot more at stake than the fate of a couple of research papers, or even a particular line of research.

Webcast: Demystifying The Higgs Results

 

Inside the LHC – Photo Credit CERN 

# 6005

 

 

Like millions of others this morning, I’ve been following the announcements coming out of Geneva on the search for the elusive Higgs Boson particle at the LHC (Large Hadron Collider).

 

And I suspect that I, along with most of the folks out there, only grasp a small percentage of what is being discussed. 

 

Later today those of us without degrees in advance physics can get some clarification by way of a webcast, aimed at the general public, that will try explain some of the news coming out of Switzerland today.

 

This announcement from Scientific American.

 

Demystifying the Higgs Results: A Panel Discussion for the General Public, 12:30–1:30 PM ET [Live Stream]

In the meantime, watch the announcements from CERN live

 

What do the results of the Higgs boson, the "God particle," mean for science? Join researchers from the Perimeter Institute, Canada's premier center for theoretical physics, for an interactive, live webcast as they discuss the latest findings from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, the biggest, most ambitious scientific experiment in human history.

 

This event, geared towards high school students, teachers and the public, will discuss the findings, background and implications in clear, accessible language.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

While tantalizing evidence of the existence of the Higgs particle has been detected, researchers believe it will take another year of experimentation before they can declare its discovery.

Breathless Headlines

 

 

 

# 5695

 

 

Based on the number of news stories published overnight – and their `forward looking’ headlines - you’d think the study that appeared in yesterday’s Journal of Breath Research was the scientific discovery of the year.

 

A few examples:

 

Swine flu breath test would 'save thousands from having needless vaccines' – Daily Mail

 

Future Swine Flu Vaccination Shortages Could Be Reduced By Breath Test – Medical News Today

 

Now, breath test to diagnose H1N1 infection – New Kerala

 

 

The actual research isn’t quite as far advanced as these headlines might lead the reader to believe.

 

A far more balanced (and realistic) report comes from Lauren La Rose of the Canadian Press. 

 

H1N1 breath test could help ID those infected with flu virus, study suggests

 

In it, one of the authors of the report is quoted as calling this research "rather preliminary," and that he views it mainly as a “proof of the concept” that monitoring chemical components in the breath could be used to determine vaccine response, or perhaps even infection status.

 

The study itself is available online.

 

Effect of the influenza A (H1N1) live attenuated intranasal vaccine on nitric oxide (FENO) and other volatiles in exhaled breath

A Mashir, K M Paschke, D van Duin, N K Shrestha, D Laskowski, M K Storer, B Yen-Lieberman, S M Gordon, M Aytekin and R A Dweik

 

The article is (temporarily) available for free (registration required), and a press release is available here.

 

The gist of the study is that researchers inoculated a small (n=9) number of subjects with the live attenuated (Flumist) H1N1 vaccine, and then measured the chemical components of their exhaled breath over a period of 7 days.

 

The found elevated levels of nitric oxide (NO) – which has previously been linked to influenza and viral infection – on day 3 in all the test subjects. Another compound -  isoprene – was detected at elevated levels on day three as well.

 

While these elevated levels appear to be connected to the replication of the live-attenuated H1N1 virus in the lungs, exactly how and why they are produced isn’t known.

 

One of the authors of the study, Professor Raed Dweik is quoted in the press release as saying:

 

"This study adds to the growing evidence for the utility of breath analysis in medical diagnostics. More work still needs to be done, however, to identify the specific compounds that change in response to vaccination and to find the biologic link between those compounds and the host response to the vaccine or the actual disease."

 

Which - while admittedly a fascinating line of research - is a far cry from today’s headlines that boldly suggest that scientists have invented a test can identify H1N1 infections.

 

Not to rain on anyone’s parade, but in order for a breath test to be able to identify who was infected by a specific influenza virus, the test would have to be able to differentiate between different viral infections.

 

And thus far, that ability has not been demonstrated.

 

Earlier this week, in BMC Study: A Crowded Viral Field, we looked at viral screening results during the opening months of the 2009 pandemic in Scotland. 

 

They found that only 9% of those diagnosed with the H1N1 virus (based on clinical & epidemiological criteria) actually tested positive for the virus.

 

Many others were infected with rhinovirus (8.9%), parainfluenza 1 (1.9% ) and 3 (4.1%), and adenovirus (3.5%). In the majority of cases, the cause of the illness could not be identified.

 

A breathalyzer test that could identify who was already infected with a specific virus would be a major coup, of course. And this line of research might someday lead us there.

 

But despite this morning’s breathless headlines, we aren’t there yet.

Solidarity For Science Bloggers

 

 

# 4708

 

UPDATED:   According to PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog the powers-that-be at Scienceblogs have reversed course (see PepsiCo has been expelled).

 

Not everyone who left is likely to return, however.  David Dobbs makes his case for staying away in Why I’m Staying Gone from ScienceBlogs.

 

 

 

Although I’m not on Scienceblogs, a lot of my favorite blogs (and bloggers) are . . . or were, anyway.  So the sad goings on over at that blog portal are of great interest to me, and no doubt to my readers as well.

 

Two days ago the news broke that the managers of Scienceblogs had `sold’ Pepsi Cola a blog slot on that prestigious venue.  

 

This was billed as a corporate sponsored blog, called Food Frontiers, that was to highlight the work being done in the nutritional field by PepsiCo researchers.

 

In other words, thinly veiled PR (public relations) and indirect advertisement.

 

And, as Maryn McKenna so aptly put it in her blog, `a crapstorm ensued’.

Although many of the resident Sciblings have weighed in on this controversy, I’ll refer you to the postings of two of personal favorites; David Dobbs and Maryn McKenna.

 

A food blog I can’t digest  -  Neruon Culture

Pepsi: Messy  - Superbug

 

Maryn has since suspended blogging on Sciblogs pending the resolution of this mess. A number of other science bloggers have done likewise, or have left the site entirely. 

 

Some of the media coverage includes Carl Zimmer’s blog on Discover  Oh, Pepsi, What Hast Thou Wrought? and a scathing assessment in the UK’s Guardian ScienceBlogs, we have a problem.

 

While blogging is generally thought of as `free’, it doesn’t come without significant personal cost to the authors. To be done well, and consistently, requires an inordinate investment of time, effort, and usually money.

 

And most bloggers never see a dime in return.

 

It takes years of steady blogging to develop a loyal following and a reputation. So moving away from Scienceblogs isn’t something to be done lightly.

 

It involves not only a lot of effort to move posts and setup shop elsewhere, it also entails the considerable risk that some of your regular readers might not manage to follow you to your new home.

 

So the decision to exit isn’t an easy one.

 

Nor is the decision to go on hiatus, as many readers will fall out of the habit of checking for updates.

 

 

To help loyal readers along, Chris Clarke on his Coyote Crossing blog has a very useful ScienceBlogs Diaspora RSS feed post, which should help those with RSS feed readers to follow their favorite bloggers wherever they land.

 

Carl Zimmer at the Discover Blog, The Loom, is also keeping a list of ex-pat Sciblings and where they end up.

 

If you are a regular reader of these excellent blogs, please take the time to follow and bookmark their new homes.  

 

And if you don’t already know these blogs, now is a great time to explore their varied offerings. 

 

You will not only be expanding your horizons, you will be showing solidarity for these science bloggers.

 

I’m still hoping for some resolution to this fiasco that doesn’t involve the continued exodus of talent from Scienceblogs.  But right now, the prospects appear dim.

 

Whether a good science blog remains at Scienceblogs, or sets up shop elsewhere, they deserve your support and attention. 

 

There is far too much drek and pseudo-science online posing as `fact’ and `truth’, so those sites that take evidence-based science seriously should be treasured.

 

I’ll update this story in the future, but your best source of information on it will be from the ex-pat bloggers who are now setting up shop elsewhere.

Tip-Toeing Through The Minefield

 

 

# 4398

 

 

There was a sardonic one-liner back in the 1970s, after a decade of media `scare stories’ about the dangers of everything from butter, to coffee, to artificial sweeteners, that said; `Face it . . everything gives lab rats cancer’.

 

While probably not true, it sprang to mind this morning when I saw this little tidbit that appears into a recent edition of PNAS.

 

“Control” laboratory rodents are metabolically morbid: Why it matters

1. Bronwen Martin, Sunggoan Ji, Stuart Maudsley, and Mark P. Mattson

Abstract

Failure to recognize that many standard control rats and mice used in biomedical research are sedentary, obese, glucose intolerant, and on a trajectory to premature death may confound data interpretation and outcomes of human studies. Fundamental aspects of cellular physiology, vulnerability to oxidative stress, inflammation, and associated diseases are among the many biological processes affected by dietary energy intake and exercise.

 

Although overfed sedentary rodents may be reasonable models for the study of obesity in humans, treatments shown to be efficacious in these animal models may prove ineffective or exhibit novel side effects in active, normal-weight subjects.

 

I suppose the good news here is that with the proliferation of fast food, Playstations, a ubiquitous Internet, and 500 cable channels streaming into every home – soon mankind’s metabolism will match that of lab rats and it will all balance out.

 

Scientific experimentation with lab rats isn’t wrong, you see. It is just a little ahead of its time.

 

I am, admittedly, always a little bit skeptical when I read the conclusions of the latest whiz-bang scientific study or a press release announcing an exciting new advance in medicine.  Even the ones that don’t employ rodents.

 

Not because I harbor conspiratorial beliefs, or a deep suspicion of the motives of scientists . . . but because I view scientific discovery as a journey  . . . not a destination.

 

Advances in science are anything but linear, and very often we find ourselves sidetracked or detoured down some flawed alley of investigation along the way.   

 

What was conventional scientific wisdom five years ago may be debunked today, and what we replace that old knowledge with now may be obsoleted in short order as well.

 

Absolutes in science are hard to find.  And the process of determining scientific `fact’ can be messy and prolonged.

 

Which is why you’ll often see cautions in my blogs about the latest research, and an avoidance of self-serving `medical miracle’ press releases about innovations that may never get out of the laboratory.

 

Over the past year, I’ve highlighted some of the conflicting studies on the efficacy of face masks vs. respirators for infection control, on the usefulness of hand washing as a flu preventative, and numerous studies on exactly how influenza is transmitted.

 

If you are looking for a consensus among scientists on these matters, I’m afraid you’ll have to keep looking.

 

What you probably can find, however, is a study that will support practically any scientific, personal, religious or economic bias or agenda you might happen to favor. 

 

And barring that, you can most certainly find a study that conveniently questions the methods of any study you might oppose. 

 

It’s a contrarian’s delight.

 

Scientific research can be a bit of a minefield through which one must tread carefully.  But rather than being distressed by the confusion or ambiguity that conflicting research sometimes promotes, I’m intrigued by it. 

 

 

Which is why I try to put links to the original study (or abstract) whenever I write about a journal article, so that the reader can look beyond the press release or the media hype and hopefully weigh the merits of the research themselves. 

 

As a non-scientist, I also rely heavily on the opinions and reviews of reputable scientists and (science) journalists whom I trust for guidance, particularly in those areas where I have little or no expertise.  

 

Although it usually comes at a great price, pandemics . . .  like wars, often result in a significant surge in scientific and medical knowledge.   

 

Our understanding of how influenza mutates, evolves, and spreads will no doubt grow tremendously over the next couple of years as the data gathered during this pandemic is examined and analyzed. 

 

While I try to highlight only reputable studies, the admonition of Caveat Lector remains for anything you read here (or anyplace else for that matter).   

 

Novel H1N1 has already re-written much of what we thought we knew about influenza virology. And some of the things we will think we learned from this virus may be overturned by the next pathogen to come down the pike. 

 

That’s simply the nature of science.   Our knowledge, like the influenza virus, is constantly evolving.  

 

Which is why, after more than 4400 essays in this space, there will always be something new to write about tomorrow.

Branswell: Flu Dogma Being Rewritten

 

 

# 3955

 

Today’s `must read’ comes from Helen Branswell of The Canadian Press, who takes us on a tour of the things we mistakenly thought we knew about influenza viruses and pandemics. 

 

There are a lot of things I could say on this subject, but I’m smart enough to simply tell you to read it, and then step quickly out of the way.

 

 

Flu dogma being rewritten by a strange virus no one pegged to trigger a pandemic

 

By Helen Branswell Medical Reporter (CP)

TORONTO — The World Health Organization's top flu scientist often describes the virus he's studied for years as "humbling."

 

And Dr. Keiji Fukuda isn't alone in marvelling at the mercurial nature of influenza. Flu scientists repeat almost as a mantra that the only thing predictable about flu is its unpredictability.

 

Yet despite decades of evidence that influenza will repeatedly rewrite the rules, flu dogma emerges and takes hold. Scientists keen to sift patterns from chaos agree X is true about Y - until the virus sets them straight yet again.

 

(Continue . . . )