Peer-to-peer

Ignazio R. Marino* writes in Correspondence in the current issue of Nature (453, 449; 22 May 2008):
'Italy must invest more in science and technology' according to I. Bertini, S. Garattini and R. Rappuoli in Correspondence (Nature 452, 685; 2008). They lament the Italian lack of financial resources and political attention for research, technology and education. As a researcher, clinician and academician, I share their concerns. However, as former chair of the health committee of the Italian Senate, I take exception to their implication that none of the major political parties recognizes science, technology and education as crucial for the future of the country's economy.
The 2007 and 2008 national budget laws, drawn up when the centre-left coalition was in power, allocated 96 million (US$149 million) to projects submitted by researchers under 40 years old. These are judged by an international committee comprising ten scientists under 40 — five from foreign institutions — selected according to impact factor and citation index scores. This alone is a revolutionary approach for the unregulated Italian system of research funding allocation.
In spite of such advances, Italy is still far behind in research investment, and this needs to change. But the crucial switch is not simply to increase funding. The way the new government should proceed is to reform the allocation criteria for funding and to start applying across the board the selection and evaluation rules of peer review. Such a system would acknowledge meritocracy and free researchers from the virtual slavery under which they have been kept by old academicians.
By applying international rules of peer review and evaluating grant applications only on the basis of merit, looking at curricula and objectives, comparing lists of publications and evaluating results, we will provide opportunities for Italy's scientists, thereby promoting the country's intellectual, cultural and economic growth.
*Department of Surgery, Jefferson Medical College, 19107 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, and Senate of the Republic of Italy, Piazza Madama snc, 00186 Rome, Italy.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 27, 2008
Categories: Policy and Public, Quality and value | Permalink | Comments (0)

From an Editorial (free to access online) in last week's Nature (453, 258; 15 May 2008):

At first glance it seems to be a shining example of the scientific method in action. Two papers published by biochemist Homme Hellinga and his students at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, claimed a breakthrough in rational enzyme design. Last year, another chemist found that Hellinga's enzymes didn't actually work, which led to the retraction of the two papers this February (see page 275 of this issue and an earlier story on 13 February). Then, this March, a third group published research showing that rational enzyme design really is possible. All has ended happily, it seems, with the field marching forward in triumph.
But examined more closely, the episode reveals some less than happy aspects of science as it is actually practised. For example, the problems with Hellinga's enzymes were identified by John Richard at the State University of New York in Buffalo, who hoped to use the proteins in his own work. In effect, Richard and his two co-workers wasted seven months and tens of thousands of dollars failing to reproduce the results from Hellinga's lab. Richard's subsequent efforts to correct the scientific record thus came at considerable cost, with no discernable benefit to his own career.
This is a perennial problem in science. Many researchers who come across non-reproducible work save themselves extra hassle and money by simply not pursuing it further. Meanwhile, those who refuse to let it go — like Richard — gain nothing.

Continue reading "Hellinga story exemplifies weaknesses of the scientific process" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 21, 2008
Categories: Quality and value | Permalink | Comments (0)

Massimo Pinto has discovered an unusual qualification for being a peer-reviewer: paying your taxes. Since 2006, Italians have been allowed to donate 0.5 per cent of their taxes to charity in a highly specific way (previously, such donations had to be made to the church or the state). On his Nature Network blog Science in the Bel Paese, Dr Pinto points out that one can elect to donate one's contribution to specific research institutes. Leaving aside the fact that some of the intended recipients do not yet seem to have received their 2006 or 2007 contributions, specifying an individual project could have the effect of bypassing the peer-review system, particularly in Italy, where science funding levels are low. Dr Pinto writes that taxpayers have three choices:

--donate to funding agencies. It happens in many countries of the world. As long as the agency is committed to assign that money in a transparent manner, including, possibly, peer review, that should be fine.
--donate to individual institutes. In this way, taxpayers may be exercising a little peer-review power. Less troublesome, perhaps, if the institute acts, internally, as the agency above. Still, it is not obvious why institute A should be so much better than institute B. Maybe the cleverest scientist, with the best idea right now, is in institute B.
--donate to a specific project. Here the taxpayers are exercising bolder peer-review powers, and that raises a red flag

As some institutes have taken to advertising the importance of their research and the difference one's money would make to humanity (no details provided in the advertisements), there is definitely scope for a loophole or two to be closed. As Dr Pinto puts it, "The particular advert that irritated me was a dialogue between two young citizens; one was asking whether the researcher in XYZ University were really going to deliver results, and the other one replied, reassuringly, that they were among the very best in Europe. Donating to them was a guarantee of success."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 06, 2008
Categories: Policy and Public | Permalink | Comments (0)