The United Kingdom ParliamentThe United Kingdom ParliamentAbout ParliamentMembers and StaffBusinessPublications & Recordsline imagesA-Z IndexGlossaryContact UsHelp
 HansardArchivesResearchHOC PublicationsHOL PublicationsCommittees
Advanced
search
Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320 - 324)

WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2004

MRS JANE CARR, PROFESSOR M JAMES C CRABBE, PROFESSOR JOHN C FRY, PROFESSOR NIGEL J HITCHIN AND PROFESSOR DAVID F WILLIAMS

  Q320  Dr Harris: Conflicts of interest in two fields: both the author's conflicts of interest, declared or otherwise, or competing interests, and those of the reviewers. Do you think there is a problem here, given recent revelations? If there is, or even if there is not, do you think it is getting worse? Are we are at a crisis level in terms of confidence in both the peer review process and whether declarations of interest are all being declared and, even when they are declared, whether they are, in fact, interfering (even though they are declared)—for example, pharmaceutical-wise?

  Professor Crabbe: I think there has to be a difference between contract research and blue skies research, and maybe there is a seamless robe between them. I think you have highlighted an issue about conflict of interest, and it is something that certainly, as an editor, I am very aware of in the authors that publish in my journal.

  Professor Williams: I think you are actually right, there are potential conflicts of interest but that happens in life in general. I would go further and say that editors have potential conflicts of interest as well as authors and reviewers; it is a question of how we handle that. I think it is done pretty well at the present time but it is something we always have to be very, very careful about.

  Professor Fry: My experience over many years in microbiology is that, in fact, generally, scientists are extremely honourable and try to do things honestly, because we are all interested in the honest publication of results which are good and help us all move forward. In fact, my area is not enormously competitive because I work in environmental microbiology. There is a tremendous amount of work still to do, but for people working on a specific high-profile issue the competition and potential conflicts of interest are potentially greater.

  Q321  Dr Harris: Given what you have just said before, that a journal loses a huge amount of credibility if a case of fraud comes to light, is there not a worry, in terms of a publications conflict of interest, in resisting the bringing to light of an error either it has made or that has been made for which it had no responsibility—except missing it, I suppose? How do we deal with that? If what you say is true, and we should all be reassured that peer review is rigorous because no one wants to publish a dodgy paper and have it revealed, how do we deal with the problem of there being, effectively, a conspiracy not to reveal the problem because of the huge impact that can have on the prestige of the journal?

  Professor Crabbe: Science is a relatively closely-knit area and within the field if something is wrong then people talk and if the journal does not instantly produce some sort of retraction or correction then people just will not go to publish in that journal.

  Professor Fry: There are alternative mechanisms. For instance, in my group of journals we have published extremely short papers where someone has challenged findings in a paper, and we encourage the author to respond. So you have the original paper, you have the challenge and you have the response to the challenge, and it is all out, it is all published, it is all open for everyone to see.

  Q322  Chairman: Last question before we have to go off to Prime Minister's questions. Someone up there said ". . . there is no reason at all why all Higher Education Institutions should have the same access to scientific publications. Not all institutions work at the cutting edge of science, technology and medicine, and many do not need access to the highest quality science publications." Would the culprit please explain what they meant, please?

  Professor Williams: That was me.

  Q323  Chairman: Well done, you recognised your own writing.

  Professor Williams: I re-read it this morning, Chairman, so it was not too difficult. This concerns what I see as many people stating that it is immensely important for the whole world to have access to leading journals as soon as they are published. I do not believe that is the case. I think, in the long term, as that information and those papers filter through and informs science in general that is extremely important. However, in my journal, and I publish papers all round the world, the vast majority of institutions do not work in this area, they could not, in fact, understand what we publish, and I think one has to be very careful in determining policy on the basis that everybody should have free access to what we publish.

  Q324  Chairman: Jane, you are itching to finish off.

  Mrs Carr: Well, words failed me there, for a moment. I think if somebody does not understand what they are reading then they do not understand it, but not to have access to it, if it is the author's wish that they should, or indeed if the community needs it, must be a cause for concern. I am speaking there personally, in a sense.

  Chairman: I think you had better take him for a drink, Jane, and beat him over the head. Thank you all very much indeed for contributing to this session. It has illuminated us on lots of areas that we have not touched on before. Thank you very much for your time.





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 July 2004