and thought-provoking ideas ("hypotheses" defined in the broadest possible sense, I guess you could say) about the medical realm sensu lato. Now, as reported by Science Insider, MH's editor, Bruce Charlton (here's his blog presenting his position on this affair), has all but been been fired as lead editor of the journal (unless MH is completely reorganized), mainly as a result of the brouhaha and subsequent fall-out over MH having accepted to publish a paper denying the link between HIV and AIDS. Indeed, some have gone so far as to wonder whether MH might be labeled "the most hated journal in science."Orac provides a thoughtful dissection of some of the problems with MH and of the impact of publishing some of what was published in that venue in recent years. I doubt I could do much better than that in terms of providing background and context to the 'regime change' underway at MH. That said, I figured I'd throw out my two cents about this, given two things: 1) I've recently published something in MH; 2) what it means for the public understanding of scientific arguments; and 3) Elsevier's role in all this.
First, two years ago, a short commentary of mine was published in MH (Riel-Salvatore 2008), I hasten to add in response to a paper they had published, which I felt was very poorly argued and completely unsupported by the available data (Underdown 2008). To MH's credit, the process of publishing my reply was very smooth, transparent and, importantly, very quick. My comment was based on a post I first had up on AVRPI, a process I chronicled in detail before, and it took all of three months from the blog-to-published-comment process to unfold, which I was personally quite happy about. Likewise, I have to say that my impression throughout this process was that MH was quite open to even very 'vigorous' criticism of papers it published. It was also nice that you didn't have to pay to publish a comment, whereas you have to pay 'page fees' to publish an actual paper in MH (itself a questionable practice, especially if it doesn't result in open access to the paper in question, but that's another post for another time).
That said, there was a good reason why I felt the need to publish that comment, even though, as a non-peer reviewed piece on a non-peer reviewed piece, it was essentially a double net loss to my research productivity, especially since I had no personal stake in this, i.e, it didn't portray any of my own work negatively. That reason was the amount of play the original paper had received in the popular press. And this, fundamentally, is the issue I have with journals like MH. To the public at large, reading that a 'study' or a 'new paper' has been published in a 'journal' (especially if it is by someone described as a professor or researcher affiliated with a bona fide university), implies that it is a serious contribution to the literature on given debates. In this case, the 'mad Neanderthal' meme as a credible explanation for their disappearance went full-steam ahead, with no real detractors on the record. I suspect that this acceptance was due in no small part to the fact that it had been published in a 'journal', never mind the facts that authors basically need to pay to have their research published in MH, with no resulting public access, and the that, contrarily to most research on Neanderthals that makes its way to the popular press, this paper was not critically evaluated by peers of the author. This is not to say that non-peer reviewed publications don't have their own raison d'être, but rather that they need to be explicitly recognized as such, especially before results published in such sources get fed to the media.
As it is, to the non-specialist, MH certainly has the appearance of a peer-reviewed journal. For one thing, it's a 'journal.' For another, it's published by Elsevier, which touts itself as "the world’s leading publisher of science and health information" (from their website). With such backing, why wouldn't someone assume that MH is a reputable source? It's even got 'medical' right there in the title! Hell, I hadn't heard of MH before reading Underdown's paper, and my first reaction upon seeing it was an Elsevier pub certainly was that it was most likely a peer-reviewed journal. Plus, as this post's inclusion on Research Blogging shows, it even has a doi and everything, making the contents of MH appear as legitimate peer-reviewed publications, as does their inclusion in scientific databases like Web of Science. This is not to exculpate people who don't do their homework, but MH certainly has all the outside appearance of a peer-reviewed publication.
This leads to the third point, namely the business practices of Elsevier, who bought MH in 2002 (the journal was created in 1975). I think an important question to ask is why Elsevier bothered to acquire MH in the first place? Given its current double-take on MH's worth as a scientific publication, it kind of makes one wonder whether the goal of dominating as much of the scientific publishing market as possible made the higher-ups at Elsevier ignore the nature of that journal in their continuing efforts to take over an increasing share of the publishing world, no matter what the costs... I very much doubt that they had as their ultimate goal to make MH into a full-blown peer-reviewed publication (if so, why wait 8 years?), so what's the story here? I think we may be witnessing an instance of Elsevier's business model backfiring, and though they're clearly trying to shift the fall-out solely on MH, I think it ultimately highlights the hypocrisy that grows from the tensions between the mission of scientific publication and the business realities faced by publishing conglomerates within which individuals become increasingly faceless entities conceived more as profit-making devices than conduits for the wide and timely dissemination of scientific knowledge. I think this is all the more grating given that scientists are essentially forced to give away their work to be published in the 'right' Elsevier journals - and those of other large publishing companies - (even if in many cases their reputation far precedes their incorporation by Elsevier) for purposes of getting tenure, professional prestige, etc.
In any case, my point here is not to say that MH is all sorts of awesome and that Elsevier isn't. In fact, my only involvement with MH came as a reaction to a paper that I thought was of pretty low academic quality (which echoes some of the problems that precipitated the current fiasco) and which they nonetheless elected to publish, even though it echoed another short paper written almost 35 years prior (
References
Riel-Salvatore J (2008). Mad Neanderthal disease? Some comments on "A potential role for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Neanderthal extinction". Medical hypotheses, 71 (3), 473-4 PMID: 18524493
UNDERDOWN, S. (2008). A potential role for Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in Neanderthal extinction Medical Hypotheses, 71 (1), 4-7 DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2007.12.014
14 comments:
I wonder why, of all possible scientific themes that can be controversially addressed, it was AIDS the one that caused such upheaval. I have known of such alternative hypothesis, even full fledged theories, since the early 90s and I even still must have one of such informal publications airing such alternative views over there somewhere (something allegedly written by the then "greatest expert on retroviruses", were not known for causing any illness at all).
The debate, I imagine was silenced, maybe for good or maybe for bad (I strongly distrust the medical-pharmaceutical lobby and avoid going to physicians all I can but I don't have a clear opinion on the AIDS controversy), and until no I have not heard of it again. But I have always got the feeling that it was closed in false, with too many questions unanswered and, hence, I'm not convinced that what the official opinion says is not a mere conspiracy to sell medicines, which may or not work.
Without open debate there's no way that people like myself can make up our mind, what is potentially a health risk. If the mainstream medical opinion is correct, then no big deal but what if it's wrong. People commit errors and lack of debate and camarilla dynamics lead to collective persistent errors, which can have massive consequences.
Hence I'm totally in favor that there's room for alternative hypothesis to be published and debated. And I'm also in favor, as you say well, for people not simply take research at face value but to be critical. Peer-reviewed material can also be total junk, only by analyzing it critically we can make up our own opinions and a conscious collective consensus will eventually arise from such open debate.
Maju,
I strongly distrust the medical-pharmaceutical lobby and avoid going to physicians
Then why are you reading about the methods used by physicians and scientists to ensure the accuracy of the research they publish?
The peer review process does not prevent unpopular ideas from being published.
The peer review process is supposed to prevent bad research from being published. Bad means that it includes significant errors, draws conclusions that are not supported by the data, miscalculates data, . . . .
The scientific method is about determining the truth - no matter how politically unpopular that might be.
One doctor refusing to accept the peer reviewed research does not make a controversy. That is a tantrum, which had been adopted by people with motives that are psychological and/or political, rather than medical.
Julien Riel-Salvatore,
Thank you for an informative review, from a different perspective, of the way Medical Hypotheses did things.
"Then why are you reading about the methods used by physicians and scientists to ensure the accuracy of the research they publish?"
I have to base my distrust of something, right?
"The peer review process does not prevent unpopular ideas from being published.
The peer review process is supposed to prevent bad research from being published".
I'm not against peer-review but there's been voices questioning the possible favoritism, either on personal bases or "ideological" basis (i.e. where the paper stands on a given issue) in the peer-review process. So I'm totally in favor of other research material having room to be published, even if the fact that's not peer-reviewed should be accounted for.
"The scientific method is about determining the truth"...
It's about approaching the truth, finding it, searching it... "determining the truth" sounds to a judicial act not scientific research.
That's why even the most well established theories are still theories and, in principle at least, not religious-like dogma. That's the best thing about science: that "finds" (approaches) truth by the very means of having no truth, no dogma.
When "science" becomes dogma, then it's not anymore science.
Maju,
I'm not against peer-review but there's been voices questioning the possible favoritism, either on personal bases or "ideological" basis (i.e. where the paper stands on a given issue) in the peer-review process. So I'm totally in favor of other research material having room to be published, even if the fact that's not peer-reviewed should be accounted for.
I am not going to pretend that misbehavior does not happen. Science does self-correct. What else does that?
"The scientific method is about determining the truth"...
It's about approaching the truth, finding it, searching it... "determining the truth" sounds to a judicial act not scientific research.
As close to the truth as we can currently get. This seems to be just a difference in connotation.
That's why even the most well established theories are still theories and, in principle at least, not religious-like dogma. That's the best thing about science: that "finds" (approaches) truth by the very means of having no truth, no dogma.
Are you providing a lay definition of theory?
In science, theory has a specific meaning. While evolution is a theory, that is only because everything is not capable of being known. Evolution is a fact, but it is constantly revised to reflect new research.
There is no doubt about whether we evolved. There is only more to be learned about the specifics.
When "science" becomes dogma, then it's not anymore science.
Certain things have been resolved to the extent that there are no reasonable challenges to them.
A simple, and easy to prove example, is that the world is not flat. If I ignore the protestation of a flat earther, am I being dogmatic, or am I acknowledging that there is no evidence to support the flat earther's position. Maybe in another dimension, the earth is flat, but I live in this dimension.
"Science does self-correct".
Only if there is open debate.
More precisely, "Science" does nothing: people do.
"Are you providing a lay definition of theory?"
No, I'm using the scientific concept of theory. The pop concept of "theory" is what scientists call a hypothesis. But the best established theory (scientific sense) can be challenged, should be challenged if there's data to do it, and eventually is challenged.
Often it's more like an "upgrade" (this was good but now we can do better) but in other times it's necessary to scrap everything out and begin from scratch. This is more likely to happen the more distant we get from "pure science", i.e. physics and maths, mostly because it's harder, I understand, to get near-100% bullet-proof evidence.
"Evolution is a fact...".
I'm in favor of the theory of evolution and I know it's as close to the truth we are in these aspects but it is not just "a fact" and claiming that is dogmatic and mimicking what preachers do.
Science is only as good as it's humble (not before any hypothetical almighty god but just before ourselves and our limitations). Scientific and, specially, technological arrogance can be as dangerous as religious or any other kind of human arrogance. The damage inflicted to the environment (and that also means our own living conditions) in the name of "science and progress" clearly shows that science (or at least "some science") can do things wrong.
Talidomide was a much cheered "scientific" product but it was a criminal disaster, Heroin was once commercialized by Bayer as a panacea drug, together with Aspirin and Codein, people has died or been maimed for life in the name of science: from Dr. Menguele to Chernobyl. I could go for a while mentioning examples of this kind of abhorrences within science and technology but I think these are enough as examples.
Science, the scientific method and the huge knowledge expansion that it has provided and presumably will provide in the future is obviously something good for our species... but we can't deify science and we must be wary of oligopolistic practices in the academic networks and related industries as well.
Science, in order to work properly, needs, like democracy, of free speech and open debate. There will always be fringe science: some will eventually prove useful, much of it probably useless and still some other fraction mere pseudoscience. But it must exist because otherwise science risks becoming dogmatic and that's suicidal for science itself.
There have been way too many cases when mainstream "scientific" theories were proved wrong (think Piltdown Man or "classical" psychiatric "therapies" such as lobotomy) and were actually hindering progress in the correct direction (it seems). It was only because there were "fringe scientists" who dared to challenge the established beliefs even at risk of their reputations and careers because we have been able to overcome such limitations and move on.
This of course will happen in the future as well and that's a reason to respect at least some of those fringe scientists, even if they are wrong... because they may be right after all.
You provide examples of abuse of science, not good science. If you abuse anything, you will produce bad results.
That is exactly the point of peer review. It is supposed to be one more layer of objectivity to prevent bias from being presented as science.
All of the examples of problems with peer review seem to be getting a lot of coverage, so I do not see this as an example of preventing debate. The alleged problems with peer review are problems with people misbehaving, not problems with science.
Medical Hypotheses has always seemed to be the scientific community's version of The Onion. It was generally only taken seriously by cranks, who could not get their papers published in reputable journals.
The media have never been good at understanding science, so the ones duped by papers published in this vanity journal were the people reading misleading science reporting.
Taking the time to read these papers was good for teaching the recognition of research mistakes. Medical Hypotheses did not contribute to progress in science any more than the Weekly World News contributes to progress in journalism.
On the other hand, The Daily Show does cross over from comedy to important journalism.
Well, from what I've read here and at the links, there's some good deal of respectable researchers with peer-reviewed papers published elsewhere that at some time in their careers needed to publish there. So it does not seem superfluous at all.
Also it's good that people is critical with what they read, be it peer-reviewed or not. Sometimes peer-review gives a false patina of respectability to otherwise awful research or, inversely, it can block legitimate, quality but "too daring" research from being published.
After all where there is any hierarchy, there tends to be a good deal of conservatism. And if only peer-review is published, the Academia risks becoming something like an obscurantist sect.
Fresh air is always good. You don't like it? Close the window then (i.e. don't read such materials) but do not stop others from doing it, because that's not really different from censorship.
"You provide examples of abuse of science, not good science. If you abuse anything, you will produce bad results".
I'm pretty sure that all my examples (unsure about Mengele) are examples of peer-reviewed products or their equivalent. Surely Chernobyl was, talidomide was and heroin was with all likelihood. Then it was considered good science... just that it was not.
What could have prevented these disasters? Maybe nothing but maybe open debate, listening to critics with some interest and not being academically self-complacent would have helped.
I'm sure leeches were peer-reviewed medicine (or their equivalent) once upon a time. Luckily there was people who were free thinkers and took other paths, allowing science to advance and (hopefully) improve.
Maybe Kepler would have never been able to publish in peer-review, certainly Galileo could not.
Maju,
Part I (limited size of comments on Blogger)
Well, from what I've read here and at the links, there's some good deal of respectable researchers with peer-reviewed papers published elsewhere that at some time in their careers needed to publish there. So it does not seem superfluous at all.
You are claiming that there is research that would not otherwise be published. That this research is of high enough quality to be published elsewhere. That publishing in a journal that has a per page charge is respectable.
Also it's good that people is critical with what they read, be it peer-reviewed or not. Sometimes peer-review gives a false patina of respectability to otherwise awful research or, inversely, it can block legitimate, quality but "too daring" research from being published.
I agree that there is peer reviewed research that is garbage.
Where is this too daring research that needed to be published by Medical Hypotheses, because nobody else would publish it?
After all where there is any hierarchy, there tends to be a good deal of conservatism. And if only peer-review is published, the Academia risks becoming something like an obscurantist sect.
That might be true, if you could provide some evidence of these too daring subjects being suppressed. The article on climate change is an example of subjects that are being very broadly discussed. I do not follow the topic, so I do not know if there is any validity to the claim that valid research is being suppressed by peer review.
Fresh air is always good. You don't like it? Close the window then (i.e. don't read such materials) but do not stop others from doing it, because that's not really different from censorship.
If it is valid research, why shouldn't it have to meet some standards for quality? They can always publish in a journal that is more clearly not peer reviewed.
Maju,
Part II
"You provide examples of abuse of science, not good science. If you abuse anything, you will produce bad results".
I'm pretty sure that all my examples (unsure about Mengele) are examples of peer-reviewed products or their equivalent. Surely Chernobyl was, talidomide was and heroin was with all likelihood. Then it was considered good science... just that it was not.
Chernobyl was an engineering problem. How does this involve peer review.
Thalidomide led to the FDA demanding more evidence prior to approving medications. Not a failure of peer review. Possibly a problem of not enough peer review.
Currently, thalidomide is being used as a cancer treatment.
Heroin was designed due to the wrong hypothesis. It was assumed that heroin would be less addictive than morphine. The opposite was true. How much of that research claimed that it would be less addictive? What was the research like? Was any research published? How much of that research was peer reviewed? Remember, heroin was designed in the 1800's. There may not have been any peer review involved.
Mengele was performing criminal experiments on prisoners. Does anybody claim that he was publishing what he was doing.
Where is the peer review?
I'm sure leeches were peer-reviewed medicine (or their equivalent) once upon a time. Luckily there was people who were free thinkers and took other paths, allowing science to advance and (hopefully) improve.
At the time that leeches were used as a method of blood letting to remove the evil humors, there was little use of the scientific method. Why do you presume that this use of leeches was peer reviewed?
Currently, leeches are used to clean wounds. That use is supported by peer reviewed research.
Maybe Kepler would have never been able to publish in peer-review, certainly Galileo could not.
Kepler? Maybe you mean Copernicus.
Kepler would have benefited from application of the scientific method. His mother was locked up on charges of being a witch. There is nothing scientific about accusations of witchcraft.
Copernicus and Galileo had abundant evidence to support their positions.
There is no reason to believe that their evidence would be ignored.
Science is about results that are reproducible. The research of Copernicus and Galileo could be reproduced.
I am not the one publishing on MH nor reading it. But there seems to be a lot of people by the links provided on this post, including once the author of this blog, who is a respected archaeologist, who find doing such thing convenient at least on occasion... and more respectable than not being able to publish at all. At least they have a venue to publish their nonconformist research, even if they have to pay for it.
I'm just echoing such complaints. Maybe it's time for you to re-read the original article and its links.
"If it is valid research, why shouldn't it have to meet some standards for quality?"
Who says they don't meet them? Peer review may demand more than mere quality at times (while in other cases may demand less), like falling within certain paradigm, which is after all nothing but just another dogmatic exclusion of dissidents.
"They can always publish in a journal that is more clearly not peer reviewed".
Maybe the journal does not state that clearly? I thought it did.
"Chernobyl was an engineering problem. How does this involve peer review".
Chernobyl was built on a standard design for nuclear reactors (now obsolete but still functioning). It means that the "best" science can be awful too. That's what it means.
As I said I did not want to enter into too many examples of good science that was bad science after all but there are lots. Maybe you can't see that because you have some sort of RELIGIOUS FAITH in Science, while you should have less faith in Science and more in the methodical doubt and systematic criticism upon which such white elephant is built. More faith in the scientific method and less in Science, which in your text sounds like some sort of new unquestionable God.
Right now all those examples are being replicated in forms like GMOs (sure not enough peer review, not enough research: in fact it's illegal to research them without written permit from the owners of the patent) and surely other stuff I don't even know of. This applies in particular to the pharmaceutical industry, which is all about making big bucks with the pretext of our health.
In this sense I consider very very relevant that all this mess has happened precisely when one of such white elephants of modern medicine such as AIDS being caused by a retrovirus is challenged.
Instead of discussing it properly, as should be the case with any scientific claim, the popes of the sector prefer to persecute it with all their might. Simple as that.
(cont.)
(continues from above)
"Mengele was performing criminal experiments on prisoners".
Mengele was "a respectable physician" that performed within the law of his country. It depends how you look at it. (I'm not justifying it, of course, just making a counterpoint to your simplistic statement).
"Why do you presume that this use of leeches was peer reviewed?"
Obviously if all physicians (or nearly so) did use them, it was because all them believed it was good science. If peer-reviewed publications would have existed back then, leeches would have been one of their main topics in the medicine sections. No peer would have considered that defending the use of leeches was bad science that would need censoring, instead they might have censored those who dared to question their efficiency, dismissing them as erred or even lunatics.
But these are just examples of how the academic opinion can be absolutely wrong, specially when it becomes too arrogant. Why would I believe that precisely today Science is "perfect" and not 50, 100 or 200 years ago? That's the silliest anti-scientific idea I could imagine.
Science is built on methodical doubt, not on faith.
"Copernicus and Galileo had abundant evidence to support their positions.
There is no reason to believe that their evidence would be ignored".
Galileo's evidence was put on trial and dismissed and he was forced to abandon his heretic ideas. That's peer review at its best: a whole committee of wise men decided that his ideas were absurd, impossible, heretic.
Were they right? Seems not.
Maju,
I am not the one publishing on MH nor reading it. But there seems to be a lot of people by the links provided on this post, including once the author of this blog, who is a respected archaeologist, who find doing such thing convenient at least on occasion... and more respectable than not being able to publish at all.
As I read the post, the author wrote a comment critical of some badly done research, that would not have been published in a peer reviewed journal. He felt that not publishing this criticism would allow this bad research to appear to have credibility - because it was published in Medical Hypotheses.
At least they have a venue to publish their nonconformist research, even if they have to pay for it.
Which is fine, if they have some scientific basis. If they are not publishing science, they shouldn't try to put it in a science journal.
I'm just echoing such complaints. Maybe it's time for you to re-read the original article and its links.
my only involvement with MH came as a reaction to a paper that I thought was of pretty low academic quality (which echoes some of the problems that precipitated the current fiasco) and which they nonetheless elected to publish, even though it echoed another short paper written almost 35 years prior (Wolbarsht 1975).
I don't think that is an echo.
Chernobyl was built on a standard design for nuclear reactors (now obsolete but still functioning). It means that the "best" science can be awful too. That's what it means.
Please explain how this was the standard scientific design.
In this sense I consider very very relevant that all this mess has happened precisely when one of such white elephants of modern medicine such as AIDS being caused by a retrovirus is challenged.
If it walks like a conspiracy theory and talks like a conspiracy theory, maybe it is a conspiracy theory.
An inability to understand the way a retrovirus works is not the same as evidence that a retrovirus is impossible, implausible, or even unlikely.
The same is true for quantum physics. Not being able to understand the quantum physics is not the same as disproving quantum physics.
If there is any valid research that can be produced that supports the theory that AIDS isn't real, I do not see any reason to doubt it will be published and even more widely discussed.
Instead of discussing it properly, as should be the case with any scientific claim, the popes of the sector prefer to persecute it with all their might. Simple as that.
You mean any valid scientific claim, don't you?
Maju,
Part II
"Mengele was performing criminal experiments on prisoners".
Mengele was "a respectable physician" that performed within the law of his country. It depends how you look at it. (I'm not justifying it, of course, just making a counterpoint to your simplistic statement).
Clearly, this is much more complex than I presented.
Please explain the complexities and the law.
"Why do you presume that this use of leeches was peer reviewed?"
Obviously if all physicians (or nearly so) did use them, it was because all them believed it was good science. If peer-reviewed publications would have existed back then, leeches would have been one of their main topics in the medicine sections. No peer would have considered that defending the use of leeches was bad science that would need censoring, instead they might have censored those who dared to question their efficiency, dismissing them as erred or even lunatics.
Obviously? This is a nice scientific word. You suggest that something is obvious, but then present something that is nothing but speculation.
You ignore that peer review is part of assessing research for unintentional bias, for faulty methodology, for miscalculations, for unsupportable conclusions, et cetera.
Peer review without science is what you describe - a popularity contest.
But these are just examples of how the academic opinion can be absolutely wrong, specially when it becomes too arrogant. Why would I believe that precisely today Science is "perfect" and not 50, 100 or 200 years ago? That's the silliest anti-scientific idea I could imagine.
Peer review is now academic opinion. It is good that you feel this is only a problem, when it becomes too arrogant.
I am pleased that my standard arrogance is acceptable.
Who claimed that science is perfect?
If science were perfect, it would not need to self-correct.
Science is built on methodical doubt, not on faith.
On that we agree.
"Copernicus and Galileo had abundant evidence to support their positions.
There is no reason to believe that their evidence would be ignored".
Galileo's evidence was put on trial and dismissed and he was forced to abandon his heretic ideas. That's peer review at its best: a whole committee of wise men decided that his ideas were absurd, impossible, heretic.
Were they right? Seems not.
You alternate between scientists and inquisitors without distinction. You suggest that there is no distinction.
Galileo was imprisoned for the rest of his life.
Duesberg does not seem to have any reason to be concerned about losing his freedom or his audience.
I can't tell the difference between them.
Post a Comment