Going against the grain can be
difficult as UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler learned
again in connection with his research that dealt with similarities
between cancer and iPS cells.
His “unsettling”
findings troubled
some scientists who reviewed his paper prior to its publication in
September in
Stem Cells and Development. (See
here and
here.)
As many readers know, iPS or
reprogrammed adult cells are currently a hot research avenue in stem
cell research because they avoid many of the ticklish ethical and
political problems connected with human embryonic stem cells.
“Not surprisingly...there are certain
members of the stem cell field who would rather focus away from the
ideas that iPS cells are similar in some respects to cancer.”
Knoepfler, whose research was financed
in part by the California stem cell agency, wrote,
“Once we had a manuscript together
comparing iPS cells to cancer cells, we sent it to several high
profile journals without much luck. We thought that the fact that our
data indicated that iPS cells are similar to cancer cells might make
reviewers and editors excited. We thought that the paper was novel
and thought provoking in a number of ways. At the same time I
realized the theme of the paper would be controversial.
“I would say two general things about
the review process at the two journals that turned down the paper.
First, the reviewers at these journals were enormously helpful with
their suggestions and helped us improve the paper substantially.
Second, they were clearly very uncomfortable with the notion that iPS
cells are related in some ways to cancer so unsettled in fact that I
believe it influenced their reviews.”
At one journal, a reviewer said the
findings were either “not sufficiently novel” or “trivial.”
“Little useful insights” said another. And a third said, “many
unsettling results....”
Knoepfler commented on this blog,
“Yeah, it may be unsettling that iPS
cells share traits with cancer cells, but if that is the reality,
isn’t it important that people know that and think about it, talk
about it, and address the issue with eyes open?”
Knoepfler's item and similar comments
from other researchers that can found elsewhere on the Internet
indirectly raise questions about the California stem cell agency's process
of peer review of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding, especially in the wake of this summer's unprecedented rash of appeals of decisions by grant reviewers.
The key question is whether the agency's closed-door process reinforces orthodoxy or, in fact, is all but controlled by what
amounts to scientific conventional wisdom. Obviously, no researcher
likes to see a paper rejected or a grant denied. But the record
number of appeals at CIRM and other private complaints could well indicate
that potentially profitable proposals are receiving a less than
welcome reception behind closed doors from agency reviewers.
The agency's board itself is
hard-pressed to make such determinations. It is hamstrung by
procedures that do not permit it to expand an application directly –
only a staff-written summary. Names of applicants and institutions
are censored, although the board is required by law to discuss in
public most aspects of a research proposal. Exceptions are permitted for proprietary information. Additionally, a handful of the 29 members of the governing board do participate in the reviews, which come before final action by the board.
Currently the agency is pushing hard to
commercialize stem cell research and fulfill at least some of the
promises to voters that were made in 2004. To do that, the agency may
well have to step outside of the normal comfort zone of the good
burghers of stem cell science.
Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LITB6cXS-ZM/stem-cell-orthodoxy-and-peer-review.html
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source:
Source: