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 responsibilityexcept 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.
|