COMMENTARY Onstage
Adding to the histone code
146
150
LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES
LETTERS Editorial Expression of Concern IN THE 9 OCTOBER 2009 ISSUE, SCIENCE PUBLISHED THE RESEARCH Article “Reactome array: Forging a link between metabolome and genome” by A. Beloqui et al. (1). Science is publishing this Editorial Expression of Concern to alert our readers to the fact that serious questions have been raised about the methods and data presented in this article. The questions focus in particular on the synthesis of the dye-labeled metabolites that are central to the microarray technique. In addition, the spectroscopic data the authors cite in support of their claim were not posted to the Bangor University School of Biological Sciences Web site at the
Financial Conflicts of Interest Worth Knowing IN HIS LETTER “THE ANTIDOTE TO BIAS IN research” (23 October 2009, p. 522), D. B. Allison argues against the need to disclose sources of funding when publishing scientific research. He claims that “disclosure does nothing to buttress the validity of the scientific information and conclusions produced.” The methods of science, Allison claims, are “the antidote to the poison of bias in research.” Allison is deeply mistaken about disclosure. As J. R. Brown (1) reports, when a published study “is funded by one of the pharmaceutical companies, the sponsor’s drug invariably does better.” Brown cites evidence from a variety of studies, including Davidson (2), Friedberg et al. (3), and Stelfox et al. (4). Davidson, for example, reports that “of 107 published papers that compared rival drugs, the drug produced by the sponsor of the research was found to be superior in every single case” (1). Given the data reported by Brown, researchers ought to report what organizations support their research. Doing so serves the knowledge-seeking goals of science. The aim of the scientific method is to aid scientists in drawing the appropriate conclusions from the data they have gathered. The data Brown presents suggest that in order to properly assess
144
time of publication, despite the authors’ indication in the Supporting Online Material that the data would be so posted. In response to inquiries from Science, the authors have provided new descriptions of the synthetic methods that differ substantially from those in their published article. Based on our original concerns and the authors’ response, Science has requested evaluation of the original data and records by officials at the authors’ institutions: These officials have agreed to undertake this task. BRUCE ALBERTS Editor-in-Chief
Reference 1. A. Beloqui et al., Science 326, 252 (2009).
the research results that others publish, it is essential that a researcher know who financed the research. Furthermore, not regularly disclosing such information would prevent us from developing a better understanding of how conflicts of interest affect our pursuit of scientific knowledge. K. BRAD WRAY Department of Philosophy, State University of New York, Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126, USA. E-mail: kwray@ oswego.edu
References 1. J. R. Brown, in The Challenges of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, M. Carrier et al., Eds. (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008). 2. R. Davidson, J. Gen. Intern. Med. 12, 155 (1986). 3. M. Friedberg et al., JAMA 282, 1453 (1999). 4. H. T. Stelfox et al., N. Engl. J. Med. 338, 101 (1998).
Honing the Geoengineering Strategy IN THEIR PERSPECTIVE (“RISKS OF CLIMATE engineering,” 21 August 2009, p. 955), G. C. Hegerl and S. Solomon note that geoengineering strategies intended to reduce global warming may have unintended consequences on broader climate systems (such as rainfall patterns). We are particularly concerned by geoengineering strategies that do not reduce the concentration of atmospheric CO2, but rather attempt to reduce warming; such actions treat
8 JANUARY 2010
VOL 327
SCIENCE
Published by AAAS
the symptoms, not the cause, and ignore potentially catastrophic effects of CO2 on natural systems. For example, there is increasing evidence that ocean acidification caused by absorption of CO2 may drive immense ecosystem shifts and loss in ecosystem services (1, 2), yet plans to rapidly cool the atmosphere will do nothing to reduce the effects of CO2 in the world’s oceans. The overwhelming danger with the discourse on geoengineering strategies centers on the false sense of security that they create. Geoengineering strategies may be useful as an interim measure to reduce the effects of atmospheric CO2, but are likely to be effective only in the short term, even when combined with other actions to increase resilience in natural systems [such as removal of nutrient
Letters to the Editor Letters (~300 words) discuss material published in Science in the previous 3 months or issues of general interest. They can be submitted through the Web (www.submit2science.org) or by regular mail (1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005, USA). Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt, nor are authors generally consulted before publication. Whether published in full or in part, letters are subject to editing for clarity and space.
www.sciencemag.org
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on January 7, 2010
edited by Jennifer Sills
Declines of common species
Incentives: Stimulus Missed an Opportunity
152
154
THE NEWS FOCUS STORY “SCIENCE AND THE stimulus” (J. Mervis, 27 November 2009, p. 1176) asks whether the $18 billion science stimulus is “being spent wisely.” B. Alberts answers this question 13 pages earlier in the same issue (“On incentives for innovation,” Editorial, p. 1163). He gently points to one of the greatest missed opportunities in U.S. science policy-making. The structure of the stimulus funds will not foster innovation; rather, it will lead to more organizations such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Energy, which have evolved into sturdy and steady guaranteed support of incremental science. We all support the tiny, labyrinthine, agency efforts at “transformative” research, but the Administration’s plans are egregiously misapplied to science. Even block grants to states with some guidelines to emphasize innovation would have achieved more innovation, and
pollution (3) or maintaining herbivore density (4)]. Ultimately, the only way to combat the plethora of changes driven by increasing atmospheric (and oceanic) CO2 concentrations is to reduce our reliance on carbon-based sources of energy. BAYDEN D. RUSSELL* AND SEAN D. CONNELL Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
[email protected]
References 1. E. S. Poloczanska et al., Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 45, 407 (2007). 2. S. R. Cooley, S. C. Doney, Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 024007 (2009). 3. B. D. Russell, J. I. Thompson, L. J. Falkenberg, S. D. Connell, Glob. Change Biol. 15, 2153 (2009). 4. T. P. Hughes et al., Curr. Biol. 17, 360 (2007).
achieved. As might be expected, applicants often requested reasonable adjustments to their milestones. As a funding agency, CCV’s strategy was to use these creative projects to solicit donations that they would not otherwise receive. CCV predicted that entrepreneurial supporters would accept moderate risk provided their funds were directed to high-quality innovative research. We contend that the staged release of funds according to the progress against the self-imposed “milestones” is not only sound business practice, but allows the researchers to share risk. Everyone understood that fundraising would
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on January 7, 2010
What’s killing honey bees?
CREDIT: PHOTOS.COM
Incentives: Encouraging Adventurous Ideas IN HIS EDITORIAL “ON INCENTIVES FOR INNOvation” (27 November 2009, p. 1163), B. Alberts raises an important matter. Incentives for innovation have also been addressed recently by Cancer Council Victoria (CCV) through its Venture Grant Scheme (1). This scheme complements Australia’s conventional funding programs by funding “adventurous” ideas typically lacking preliminary data. In 2006, CCV advertised that its Venture Grants Scheme would support creative projects that could not expect funding through conventional grant schemes—high-risk, high-gain research proposals with the potential to revolutionize cancer research and treatment. Of the initial 37 applications, 5 were selected for funding. Typical budgets ranged from $450K to $600K over 3 years. The projects were diverse, including drug discovery, genomic screens for novel tumor suppressors, and synchrotron-based radiation therapy. A panel of mentors negotiated with the successful applicants to reach an agreed set of applicant-determined “milestones” for each project. Continued funding was on the basis of a review every 6 months to determine whether milestones were being
commence after the selection process—that is, when specific projects could be offered to donors. Pleasingly, fundraising stayed ahead of projected research expenditure. Four of five projects continue to meet their adjusted milestones, and two of the projects have already achieved longer-term funding through conventional sources. The panel of mentors has been delighted with the excellence of the science and the flexibility of the new process. JOSEPH A. TRAPANI,1* ANTONY W. BURGESS,2 DAVID J. HILL3 1Cancer
Immunology Program, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia. 2Epithelial Biology, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Melbourne Branch, Parkville, Victoria 3050, Australia. 3Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
[email protected]
they would have served as a useful experiment. As the major Asian nations surpass the United States in equipment and quality, our advantage must remain the U.S. agility and daring style. The usual agency nanosteps are simply unequal to the opportunity. I suggest two innovation incentives: (i) Require every principal investigator with tenure to spend one-third of each grant pursuing an area as far outside the funded proposal as possible, and base the renewal of the grant partly on that effort. (ii) Explicitly set aside 5% of every agency’s budget for modest grants that any applicant—young or old, from academia or industry—can use to work in any area that involves genuinely new unexplained facts with the potential to be of value. This would encourage the revival of the highly successful Bell Labs motto: “applications-driven basic research.” RUSTUM ROY
Reference 1. Cancer Council Victoria, Biomedical Research (www.cancervic.org.au/about-our-research/biomedical_ research).
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 327
Published by AAAS
Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
8 JANUARY 2010
145
