Virology Blog - Publication of XMRV papers should not be blocked

[CBS]

Dr. Racaniello weighs in on holding the XMRV papers

http://www.virology.ws/2010/06/30/publication-of-xmrv-papers-should-not-be-blocked/

I think he does pretty good job of highlighting the dangers of holding back research that has been reviewed and accepted for publication (I'm sure he's holding his breath to hear my opinion on his blog :Retro redface.

It is senseless to block publication because the two papers reach different conclusions. If both manuscripts were subjected to proper peer-review, and were deemed acceptable by the referees, then they should be published. The journal editorial offices must respect the opinions of the reviewers. By overriding their decisions, they have compromised the entire peer reviewer process.

Blocking publication also sends the wrong message to CFS patients, to the public, and scientists. Not only does this action raise suspicions about their motives – are they trying to publish only the result they believe is correct? – but it ignores the very important fact that science is self correcting. Scientists are humans, and they make mistakes. But eventually the right answer will come to the surface. And that is why PNAS and Retrovirology should respect peer review, publish the XMRV papers, and let science correct itself.

 

[JillBohr]

Thank you for posting this. I was thinking along the same lines but not able to write is as eloquently as Dr. Racaniello. I just had 4 letter words running through my mind.

 

[CBS]

Part of what I take from Dr. Racaniello's post is that we are as NOT alone as we have been conditioned to think we are.

All we've ever wanted was a good faith effort to uncover the truth. I think that's all that good scientists want as well.

We're finally getting that opportunity and the government is trying to manage the situation (this is not business as usual). There would be nothing to manage if the government had been acting with our interest in mind all along.

It's nice to know that scientists are letting their opinions be heard on this. Let's hope that there is a general sense of outrage being expressed "behind the scenes" and that the HHS is feeling pressure to let science work.

 

[justinreilly]

Part of what I take from Dr. Racaniello's post is that we are as alone as we have been conditioned to think we are.

All we've ever wanted was a good faith effort to uncover the truth. I think that's all that good scientists want as well.

We're finally getting that opportunity and the government is trying to manage the situation (this is not business as usual). There would be nothing to manage if the government had been acting with our interest in mind all along.

It's nice to know that scientists are letting their opinions be heard on this. Let's hope that there is a general sense of outrage being expressed "behind the scenes" and that the HHS is feeling pressure to let science work.

Right! I certainly hope so too.

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

And he is making the point that responsibility ultimately is with the journals. Once approved, it is their decision to pull. Of course, if they didn't, they might not get submissions from that organization again. But, they are under no obligation to comply.

But I do understand their not wanting to publish a blatantly false paper.

Tina