Stem the tide

Controversy dogs cell research again, but it is too early for gloom WE SAID it had a distinctly “too good to be true” feel about it. Now research describing a simple way of producing embryonic-like stem cells is being investigated over “inconsistencies”. It is too soon to say whether two papers reporting the results will have to be retracted (Nature, doi. org/r3t; doi.org/r3v). But for stem cell research there is a sense of déjà 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’ll tell you that pressure is a way of life. To get an idea of the stresses that stem cell researchers face, New Scientist asked 1000 of them to fill in an anonymous online survey. By the time we went to press, 112 had replied (see page 14). 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. “ 35 per cent of the UK public think that scientists adjust their findings to get the answers they want” 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 survey by pollsters Ipsos MORI and the British Science Association found that while the UK public holds scientists in high regard, 35 per cent think scientists “adjust their findings to get the answers they want”. Our survey suggests there may be a modicum of truth to this. Thankfully, there are signs of  a more robust system emerging from the grassroots. Scientist 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’s not forget that the underlying science may yet prove to be sound. That would be a great result for everybody.