About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily

In the Pipeline

Category Archives

« The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature | Things I Won't Work With »

July 11, 2014

My Imaginary Friends Would Be Glad to Serve as Referees

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's the biggest fake-peer-review operation I've heard of yet. Retraction Watch, which does not seem to be in any danger of running out of material, reports that a researcher in Taiwan decided to not leave the review process at the Journal of Vibration and Control up to chance. He set up scores of fake identities in their online submission database, with as many as 130 fabricated e-mail addresses, and guess who got to review his manuscripts?

The journal has retracted sixty papers going back to 2010, and I'd like to know if that's the record. I haven't heard of anything better - well, worse, you know what I mean. The professor involved has been removed from his position in Taiwan, as well he might, and the editor of the journal has resigned. As well he might, too - that editor is not implicated in the publication scam, as far as I can tell, but what exactly were his editorial duties? Dozens of papers come pouring in every year from some obscure university in Taiwan, all of them with overlapping lead or co-authors, and you don't even so much as look up from your desk? Hardly a month goes by without another bulletin from the wildly productive engineers at Pingtung U, sometimes four or five of the damn things at once, and you think you're doing your job? And nobody else who reads this journal - assuming anyone ever does - wonders what's going on, either?

If the professor involved was really getting something out of this (tenure, promotion, grant money, what have you), then the people who awarded those to him were idiots, too. In fact, that's how I'd sum up the whole affair: a fool, faking papers for a bunch of incompetents, and rewarded for it by idiots. What a crew. You really cannot underestimate the low end of the scientific publishing industry, nor its customers.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

July 7, 2014

That Retracted Stressed Stem Cell Work

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This article from David Cyranoski at Nature News is an excellent behind-the-scenes look at all the problems with the "STAP" stem-cell work, now retracted and apparently without any foundation at all. There were indeed problems with all of it from the start, and one of the key questions is whether these things could have been caught:

The committee was more vexed by instances of manipulated and duplicated images in the STAP papers. Obokata had spliced together gel lanes from different experiments to appear as one. And she had used an image of cells in a teratoma — a tumorous growth that includes multiple types of tissue — that had also appeared in her PhD dissertation. The captions indicated that the image was being used to represent different types of cell in each case. The committee judged that in both instances, although she might not have intended to mislead, she should have been “aware of the danger” and therefore found her guilty of misconduct. Obokata claimed that they were mistakes and has denied wrongdoing. . .

. . .Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, says: “We have concluded that we and the referees could not have detected the problems that fatally undermined the papers.” But scientists and publishers say that catching even the less egregious mistakes raises alarm bells that, on further investigation, can lead to more serious problems being discovered.

Many say that the tests should be carried out on all papers. Christopher says that it takes about one-third of her working week to check all accepted manuscripts for the four journals published by EMBO Press. At Nature and the Nature research journals, papers are subjected to random spot-checking of images during the production process. Alice Henchley, a spokeswoman for Nature, says that the journal does not check the images in all papers because of limitations in resources, and that the STAP papers were not checked. But she adds that as one outcome of this episode, editors “have decided to increase the number of checks that we undertake on Nature’s papers. The exact number or proportion of papers that will be checked is still being decided.”

A complication is that some of the common image manipulations (splicing gel lanes, for example) are done in honest attempts to present the data more clearly, or just to save space in a figure. My guess is that admitting this up front, along with submitting copies of the original figures to the editors (and for inclusion in the Supplementary Material?) would help to clear that up. The article raises another good point - that editors are actually worried about confronting every example of image manipulation that they see, for fear of raising the competence of the average image manipulator. There's an evolutionary-arms-race aspect to all this that can't be ignored.

In the end, one gets the impression that Nature's editorial staff (a separate organization from the News people) very much regret ever having accepted the work, as well they might. Opinion seems divided about whether they could have caught the problems with the papers themselves - this was one of those cases where a number of reputable co-authors, at reputable institutions, all screwed up simultaneously when it came to cross-checking and verification. What remains is a portrait of how eager people can be to send in groundbreaking results for publication, and how eager editors can be to publish it. Neither of those are going to change any time soon, are they?

Update: from the comments, see also this timeline of events for a look at the whole story.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

July 1, 2014

Scientific Journals: Who Pays What?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

If you've ever wondered about those deals where the large scientific publishers offer bundled discounts to libraries, wonder no more. There's a paper in PNAS whose authors used Freedom of Information Act requests to track down what various university libraries really paid for these deals, and it reveals that everyone paid something different.

Here's a comment in Nature on the study, which they can do with a straight face, since the Nature Publishing Group wasn't included in the study (although the authors seem to think, in retrospect, that they should have done so). These deals are always secret - the publishers make it a requirement not to disclose the terms. And that, as you might easily expect, benefits the publishers, since the library systems don't have a good way of finding out what the market price might be. The PNAS study reveals some odd discrepancies, with some universities getting noticeably better (and worse) deals than others. Wisconsin and Texas bargained hard, it appears, while BYU and Georgia could have done better for themselves.

As the article details, publishers used site licenses to take care of arbitrage opportunities, and the "Big Deal" bundles were used as incentives for the library systems and as tools for the publishers to figure out how much each customer might be willing to pay (using the print-based subscription data as a starting point). As you might have guessed, Elsevier comes out at the top of the pricing list when you just look at the dollar figures. On a cost-per-citation basis, though, they don't look so bad - in fact, they're the most cost-effective of the big publishers by that metric. (Sage and Taylor & Francis both look pretty bad in that table). For reference, the ACS bundle looks pretty decent, and it turns out that nearly 60% of the libraries that deal with the ACS choose the whole package (a high percentage compared to many other publishers). Interestingly, it turns out that some very wealthy schools (Harvard, MIT, Caltech) still don't take the full Elsevier bundle.

And the bundles are, naturally, a mixed bag. It's their whole purpose to be a mixed bag:

It would cost about $3.1 million at 2009 á la carte prices to buy all of the journals in Elsevier’s bundle, the “Freedom Collection.” The average research 1 university paid roughly $1.2 million, or 40% of the summed title-by- title prices, for access to the Freedom Collection. However, this bundle price is by no means equivalent to a 60% discount from journal-by-journal pricing. The Freedom Collection includes about 2,200 journals, many of which are expensive but rarely cited. The least cost-effective 1,100 journals contained in this collection supply fewer than 5% of the citations, but their prices add to more than 25% of the total of á la carte prices. A library that spent $1.2 million on Elsevier journals at listed catalog prices, selecting journals for cost-effectiveness, could obtain access to journals providing 79% of the citations to journals found in the Freedom Collection. Thus, for the average research 1 institution, the citation-scaled discount obtained from the Freedom Collection is about 21%.

Elsevier, though, drops its prices for smaller universities more quickly than many other publishers, and for Master's-level schools it's actually a better deal than many of the nonprofit publishers. We wouldn't know this, though, if these authors hadn't dug up all the info from FOIA requests, and I guess that's the take-home here: scientific publishing is a very opaque, inefficient market. And the publishers like it that way.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

June 27, 2014

Varieties of Scientific Deception

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Some may remember a paper from 2011 on the "reverse click" reaction, an interesting one where triazoles were pulled apart with mechanical force. This was an interesting system, because we really know surprisingly little, down on the molecular level, about what happens when bonds are physically stressed in this way. What do molecular orbitals look like when you grab both ends of the molecule and tug hard? Which bonds break first, and why? Do you get the reverse of the forward reaction, or do different mechanisms kick in (free radical intermediates, etc.)? (Note that the principle of microscopic reversibility doesn't necessarily apply when the conditions change like this).

Unfortunately, there seems to be trouble associated with this example. Science has an editorial "expression of concern" on the paper now, and it appears that much of it is not, in fact, reproducible (see this report in C&E News).

The paper was from the Bielawski lab at UT-Austin, and Bielawski is reported as saying that a former group member has confessed to manipulating data. But he also says that the conclusions of the paper are unchanged, which is interesting. My guess is that the "unclick" does happen, then, but nowhere as smoothly as reported. Someone may have sweetened things to make it all look better. At any rate, a correction is coming soon in Science, so we should get more information at that point.

This reminds me of the scheme I use to rate political and economic corruption. Stage I is paying someone off to do something they wouldn't normally do (or aren't authorized to do) for you. This happens everywhere, to some extent. Stage II is when you're bribing them just to do the job they're supposed to be doing in the first place. Many countries suffer from institutional cases of this, and it's supremely annoying, and a terrible drag on the economy. And Stage III, the worst, is when you're paying them not to harm you - a protection racket with the force of law behind it. Cynics may adduce examples from the US, but I'm thinking about countries (Russia, among others) where the problem is far worse.

Similar levels apply to fakery in the scientific literature. Here's how I break it down:

Stage I is what we may have in this case: actual conclusions and effects are made to look cleaner and better than reality. Zapping solvent peaks in the NMR is a perfect small-scale example of this - for organic chemists, solvent peaks are sometimes the training wheels of fakery. The problem is, once you're used to altering data, at what point do you find it convenient to stop? It's far better not to take that first step into matters-of-degree territory.

Stage II is unfortunately common as well, and there's a nice slippery path from Stage I that can land you here. This is when you're convinced that your results are correct, but you're having such a hard time getting things to work that you decide to "fake it until you make it". That's a stupendously bad idea, of course, because a lot of great results were never real in the first place, which leaves you hung out to dry, and even the ones that can be finally filled in don't have to do so in the way that you were faking them to happen. So now a real result is tainted by deception, which will call the whole thing into doubt when the inconsistencies become clear. And faked results are faked results, even if they're done in what you might think is a good cause. Many big cases of scientific fraud have started off this way, with someone just trying to fill in that one little gap, just for now.

Stage III, the bottom, is when something is faked from beginning to end. There was no question of it even working in the first place - it never did. Someone's just trying to get a paper, or a degree, or tenure, or fame, or something, and they're taking the shortcut. I think that there are two main classes of fakery in this category. In one group (IIIa?), you have people whipping up bogus results in low-profile cases where no one may notice for years, if ever, because no one cares. And you have IIIb, the famous high-profile cases (see Jan-Hendrik Schön, among too many others) where impressive, splashy, look-at-that stuff turns out to have been totally faked as well. Those cases are a study in human psychology. If you report a big result in superconductors, stem cells, cancer therapy or any other field where a lot of smart, competent people are paying very close attention, you will be found out at some point. How can you not be? We're in Bernie Madoff territory here, where someone comes into work every day of every week knowing that their whole reputation is a spray-painted scrim of deception that could have a hole punched through it any minute. How people can possibly live this way I don't really know, but people do. The self-confidence displayed by this sort of personality is a wonder of nature, in its way. IIIa cases are initiated by the desperate, stupid, and/or venal. IIIb cases, though, are brought on by people born to their task.

Update: as pointed out by several good comments, there are plenty of not-quite-fraud sins that neighbor these. Those are worth a separate post, partly because they're even more common than straight-up fraud.

Comments (53) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

June 6, 2014

The Robustness Test: Why Don't We Just Require It?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a follow-up paper to that one on the robustness of new synthetic methods that I blogged about here. This one's in Nature Protocols, so it's a detailed look at just how you'd go about their procedure for shaking down a new reaction.

The reaction they've chosen is a rhodium-catalyzed indole formation (phenylhydrazine plus substituted alkyne), which is a good test bed for the real world (heterocycles, metal-catalyzed mechanism). The authors suggest a matrix of additives and reaction conditions, analyzed by GC, as in their original paper, to profile what can be tolerated and what can't. It's good to have the detailed reference out there, and I hope it gives referees and journal editors something to point at.

But will they? I can imagine a world where new reactions all have a "standard additives" grid somewhere in the paper, showing how the yields change. You could even color-code them (the old stoplight slide scheme, red/yellow/green, would be fine), and then we'd all have a way to compare synthetic methods immediately. Aldrich and others could sell the pre-assembled kit of the standard compounds to use. This would also point out reactions where more useful work could be done, since it would be immediately obvious that the new Whatsit Cyclization fails in the presence of tertiary amines, etc. Too often now you have to work that our for yourself, usually by seeing what the authors left out.

So why don't we all do this? It's more work, that's for sure, but not an incredible amount more work. If the major synthetic chemistry journals starting asking for it, that would be that. It would also make the publication landscape even more clear, because the titels that don't ask for an extra few days to be spent on the reaction conditions would be hard-pressed to make a case that they weren't just venues for hackwork (or for people with something to hide). I'd rather read about reactions with a clear statement of what they'll work on and what they won't - wouldn't you?

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

June 2, 2014

No More Acid Stem Cells

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

In case you hadn't seen it, the "acid-washed stem cells" business has gone as far into the dumper as it can possibly go. It now appears that the whole thing was a fraud, from start to finish - if that's not the case, I'll be quite surprised, anyway. The most senior author of the (now retracted) second paper, Teruhiko Wakayama, has said that he doesn't believe its results:

The trigger, he told Bioscience, was his discovery—which he reported to Riken a few weeks ago--that two key photos in the second paper were wrong. Obokata, lead author on both papers, had in April been found by Riken guilty of misconduct on the first paper: the falsification of a gel electrophoresis image proving her starting cells were mature cells, and the fabrication of images proving resulting STAP stem cells could form the three major tissue types of the body.

But Riken had not yet announced serious problems with the second paper.

Last week, however, there was a flurry of activity in the Japanese press, as papers reported that two photos—supposed to show placenta made from STAP cells, next to placenta made from embryonic stem (ES) cells—were actually photos of the same mouse placenta.

As with so many cases before this one, we now move on (as one of Doris Lessing's characters once put it) to having interesting thoughts about the psychology of lying. How and why someone does this sort of thing is, I'm relieved to say, apparently beyond me. The only way I can remotely see it is if these results were something that a person thought were really correct, but just needed a bit more work, which would be filled in in time to salvage everything. But how many times have people thought that? And how does it always seem to work out? I'm back to being baffled. The stem cell field has attracted its share of mentally unstable people, and more.

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

May 28, 2014

The Science Chemogenomics Paper is Revised

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The Science paper on chemogenomic signatures that I went on about at great length has been revised. Figure 2, which drove me and every other chemist who saw it up the wall, has been completely reworked:

To improve clarity, the authors revised Fig. 2 by (i) illustrating the substitution sites of fragments; (ii) labeling fragments numerically for reference to supplementary materials containing details about their derivation; and (iii) representing the dominant tautomers of signature compounds. The authors also discovered an error in their fragment generation software that, when corrected, resulted in slightly fewer enriched fragments being identified. In the revised Fig. 2, they removed redundant substructures and, where applicable, illustrated larger substructures containing the enriched fragment common among signature compounds.

Looking it over in the revised version, it is indeed much improved. The chemical structures now look like chemical structures, and some of the more offensive "pharmacophores" (like tetrahydrofuran) have now disappeared. Several figures and tables have been added to the supplementary material to highlight where these fragments are in the active compounds (Figure S25, an especially large addition), and to cross-index things more thoroughly.

So the most teeth-gritting parts of the paper have been reworked, and that's a good thing. I definitely appreciate the work that the authors have put into making the work more accurate and interpretable, although these things really should have been caught earlier in the process.

Looking over the new Figure S25, though, you can still see what I think are the underlying problems with the entire study. That's the one where "Fragments that are significantly enriched in specific sets of signature compounds (FDR ≤ 0.1 and signature compounds fraction ≥ 0.2) are highlighted in blue within the relevant signature compounds. . .". It's a good idea to put something like that in there, but the annotations are a bit odd. For example, the compounds flagged as "6_cell wall" have their common pyridines highlighted, even though there's a common heterocyclic core that that all but one those pyridines are attached to (it only varies by alkyl substitutents). That single outlier compound seems to be the reason that the whole heterocycle isn't colored in - but there are plenty of other monosubstituted pyridines on the list that have completely different signatures, so it's not like "monosubstituted pyridine" carries much weight. Meanwhile, the next set ("7_cell wall") has more of the exact same series of heterocycles, but in this case, it's just the core heterocycle that's shaded in. That seems to be because one of them is a 2-substituted isomer, while the others are all 3-substituted, so the software just ignores them in favor of coloring in the central ring.

The same thing happens with "8_ubiquinone biosynthesis and proteosome". What gets shaded in is an adamantane ring, even though every single one of the compounds is also a Schiff base imine (which is a lot more likely to be doing something than the adamantane). But that functional group gets no recognition from the software, because some of the aryl substitution patterns are different. One could just as easily have colored in the imine, though, which is what happens with the next category ("9_ubiquinone biosynthesis and proteosome"), where many of the same compounds show up again.

I won't go into more detail; the whole thing is like this. Just one more example: "12_iron homeostasis" features more monosubstituted pyridines being highlighted as the active fragment. But look at the list: there's are 3-aminopyridine pieces, 4-aminomethylpyridines, 3-carboxylpyridines, all of them substituted with all kinds of stuff. The only common thread, according to the annotation software, is "pyridine", but those are, believe me, all sorts of different pyridines. (And as the above example shows, it's not like pyridines form some sort of unique category in this data set, anyway).

So although the most eye-rolling features of this work have been cleaned up, the underlying medicinal chemistry is still pretty bizarre, at least to anyone who knows any medicinal chemistry. I hate to be this way, but I still don't see anyone getting an awful lot of use out of this.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | Chemical Biology | Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

May 14, 2014

A Unique Correction

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A reader sent this correction notice along this morning, and I agree: I've never seen anything quite like it. Here's how it goes (emphasis added):

According to the recent reconsideration and re-evaluation of every author’s contribution of this work, all of authors have reached the final conclusion that we should rearrange the order of the authors and remove Dr. Usui from the author list as observed below.

(List of authors follows)

All of authors have already approved this correction. Dr. Usui, our supervisor, also authorized and approved it.

There's surely a story here, but I'm sure that I don't quite know what it is, either!

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 22, 2014

J. Appl. Drivel or Gibberish Lett.? Choices, Choices.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

People keep hoaxing the predatory "scholarly" publishers out there, and the publishers keep falling for whatever drivel is slung at them. Here's the latest example from a reporter at the Ottawa Citizen, Tom Spears. He molded a pile of steaming gibberish into the rough shape of a manuscript, and that was more than enough:

I have just written the world’s worst science research paper: More than incompetent, it’s a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble. . .

. . .I copied and pasted one phrase [in the title] from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology.

I wrote the whole paper that way, copying and pasting from soil, then blood, then soil again, and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars. They had squiggly lines and looked cool, so I threw them in.

Footnotes came largely from a paper on wine chemistry. The finished product is completely meaningless.

The university where I claim to work doesn’t exist. Nor do the Nepean Desert or my co-author. Software that catches plagiarism identified 67 per cent of my paper as stolen (and that’s missing some). And geology and blood work don’t mix, even with my invention of seismic platelets.

And you guessed it - the acceptances came rolling in, and pretty damned quickly, too. Peer-reviewed, refereed, and edited within 24 hours - where are you going to find an honest journal with service like that? 16 of the 18 bottom-feeding "journals" accepted it, and one of the rejections suggested that it just needed a bit of tweaking to be accepted. And one of the publishers has asked Spears to serve on an editorial advisory board, so he's clearly got what it takes.

Of course, as yesterday's post shows, even a peer-reviewed journal with a recognizable name can publish gibberish. But I assume that Drug Discovery Today and Elsevier didn't charge the author $1000 to do it. On the other hand, they might have taken more than 18 hours to review the manuscript. Or not.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature | The Scientific Literature

J. Appl. Drivel or Gibberish Lett.? Choices, Choices.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

People keep hoaxing the predatory "scholarly" publishers out there, and the publishers keep falling for whatever drivel is slung at them. Here's the latest example from a reporter at the Ottawa Citizen, Tom Spears. He molded a pile of steaming gibberish into the rough shape of a manuscript, and that was more than enough:

I have just written the world’s worst science research paper: More than incompetent, it’s a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble. . .

. . .I copied and pasted one phrase [in the title] from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology.

I wrote the whole paper that way, copying and pasting from soil, then blood, then soil again, and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars. They had squiggly lines and looked cool, so I threw them in.

Footnotes came largely from a paper on wine chemistry. The finished product is completely meaningless.

The university where I claim to work doesn’t exist. Nor do the Nepean Desert or my co-author. Software that catches plagiarism identified 67 per cent of my paper as stolen (and that’s missing some). And geology and blood work don’t mix, even with my invention of seismic platelets.

And you guessed it - the acceptances came rolling in, and pretty damned quickly, too. Peer-reviewed, refereed, and edited within 24 hours - where are you going to find an honest journal with service like that? 16 of the 18 bottom-feeding "journals" accepted it, and one of the rejections suggested that it just needed a bit of tweaking to be accepted. And one of the publishers has asked Spears to serve on an editorial advisory board, so he's clearly got what it takes.

Of course, as yesterday's post shows, even a peer-reviewed journal with a recognizable name can publish gibberish. But I assume that Drug Discovery Today and Elsevier didn't charge the author $1000 to do it. On the other hand, they might have taken more than 18 hours to review the manuscript. Or not.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature | The Scientific Literature

April 21, 2014

Molecular Printing of Drug Molecules. Say What?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: the author of this paper has appeared in the comments here (and elsewhere) saying that he's withdrawing the paper. These are apparently reviewer's comments on it, although I have no way of verifying that. Many of them don't sound like the comments I might have expected. There's more here as well.

Here we have one of the oddest papers to appear in Drug Discovery Today, which is saying something. The journal has always ranged wider than some of the others in this space, but this is the furthest afield I've seen to date. The title is "DrugPrinter: print any drug instantly", and I don't think I can do better than letting the abstract speak for itself:

In drug discovery, de novo potent leads need to be synthesized for bioassay experiments in a very short time. Here, a protocol using DrugPrinter to print out any compound in just one step is proposed. The de novo compound could be designed by cloud computing big data. The computing systems could then search the optimal synthesis condition for each bond–bond interaction from databases. The compound would then be fabricated by many tiny reactors in one step. This type of fast, precise, without byproduct, reagent-sparing, environmentally friendly, small-volume, large-variety, nanofabrication technique will totally subvert the current view on the manufactured object and lead to a huge revolution in pharmaceutical companies in the very near future.

Now, you may well read that and ask yourself "What is this DrugPrinter, and how can I get one?" But note how it's all written in the conditional - lots of woulds and coulds, which should more properly be mights and maybes. Or maybe nots. The whole thing is a fantasy of atomic-level nanotechnology, which I, too, hope may be possible at some point. But to read about the DrugPrinter, you'd think that someone's ready to start prototyping. But no one is, believe me. This paper "tells" you all the "steps" that you would need to "print" a molecule, but it leaves out all the details and all the hard parts:

Thus, if DrugPrinter can one day become a reality it will be a huge step forward in drug discovery. The operator needs only to sit down in front of a computer and draw the structure of compound, which is then inputted into the computer, and the system will automatically search by cloud computing for suitable reaction conditions between bond and bond. . .

That actually captures the tone of this paper pretty well - it exists on a slightly different plane of reality, and what it's doing in Drug Discovery Today is a real mystery, because there's not much "Today" in it, for one thing. But there's something else about it, too - try this part out and see what you think:

Thus, this novel protocol only needs one step instead of the five-to-ten steps of the current synthesis process. In actual fact, it is even better than click chemistry, with lower costs and with better precision of synthesis. A world-leading group led by Lee Cronin has made advances with the technology named ‘Chemputer’. However, it is different to our concept. We specifically address the detail of how to pick up each atom and react. We also disagree that it is possible for anyone to simply download the software (app) from the internet and use it to print one's own drug. It is not feasible and should be illegal in the future.

Some of this, naturally, can be explained by non-native English usage, although the editorial staff at DDT really should have cleaned that up a bit. But there's an underlying strain of grandiose oddness about the whole manuscript. It makes for an interesting reading experience, for sure.

The paper proposes a molding process to fit the shape of the desired target molecule, which is not prima facie a crazy idea at all (templated synthesis). But remember, we're down on the atomic scale here. The only thing to build the mold out of is more atoms, at the same scale as the material filling the mold, and that's a lot harder than any macroscale molding process that you can make analogies to. The MIP (molecularly imprinted polymer) idea is the closest real-world attempt at this sort of thing, but it's been around for quite a while now without providing a quick route into molecular assembly. There is no quick route into molecular assembly, and you’re certainly not going to get one from stuff like this:

Benzene has six carbon atoms joined in a ring, with one hydrogen atom attached to each carbon atom. It can be divided into six reactors for three atoms: C, H and C (Fig. 3). After inputting the chemical structure of benzene, the system will search for the best synthesis condition for each bond. The best optimal condition will be elucidated by computer and controlled by a machine with optical tweezers to pick up the reactant and the atoms of carbon and hydrogen. The carbon atom will be picked up by optical tweezers in the right position in these tiny reactors (just like a color laser printer). DrugPrinter technology will work just like a color laser printer but instead of a four-color (red, yellow, blue and black) printer toner cartridge there will be various atoms.

Right. The computer will search for the best reaction conditions for building up benzene by individual carbon atoms? There are no best conditions for that. You can make benzene from acetylene, if you’re so minded, but you need metal catalysts (Reppe chemistry). And how are these “conditions” to work inside some sort of benzene-shaped mold? How are the intermediates (propene? butadiene?) to be held in there while another carbon atom comes in? Making benzene in this manner would be Nobel-level stuff, and this paper’s just getting warmed up:

. . .The chamber for the storage of elements is divided into three parts based on the character of each atom according to the periodic table of elements. Roughly, there are three categories: nonmetals, metals and transition metals. Of course, most drugs are organic compounds, thus it is reasonable to expect that carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) will be the major consumables (just as the black toner cartridge always runs out before the other three colors in a printer). . .

I don’t know what the author’s background is, but honestly, you get the impression that it doesn’t include much organic chemistry. The whole paper is written about a world where you take individual atoms from these reservoirs and fly them down small channels “with lasers or plasma” to be caught by optical tweezers and put into the right position. Apparently, things are just going to snap together like so many molecular model pieces once that happens. Reaction mechanisms, thermodynamics, reactivity and selectivity make no appearance at all that I can see. What does make an appearance is stuff like this:

Big data is applied suddenly in any field. For DrugPrinter, we allow the user to upload their desired compound by a webserver. A cloud computing system and fast dealing and optimal of the chemical reaction must be searched immediately. All the bond–bond reactions will be collected in an intelligent system by cloud computing. Because we built a world-first intelligent cloud computing drug screening system called iScreen ( and an integrated webserver ( including the world’s largest traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) database (, this has enabled our technology. . .

I’m not trying to be unkind here, but some of this reads rather like the spam comments that pile up on this blog and others. “The buzzword will be made by high-tech buzzword by use of buzzword systems”. None of this is real, and as speculation it’s not too exciting, either. Eric Drexler is far more interesting reading – you can certainly find many things to argue about with him (as Richard Smalley famously did), but he’s thought about these problems in a useful way, as have many others. Drexler’s name, by the way, appears nowhere in this current paper, although the whole thing reads like a smudged tenth-generation photocopy of his work from the 1980s.

And that brings up an editorial question: who reviewed this? How did the staff at Drug Discovery Today find this worth publishing in its current form? I have no problem with them running papers about speculative nanotech chemical synthesis, I should add. I like that stuff; I like reading about it. But I don’t like reading hand-waving hoo-hah illustrated with videos of traditional egg-cake molding machines (I kid you not). As published, I found this paper to be an irritating, head-shaking, eye-rolling waste of time, and I would gladly have said so in a referee report. I see that Chemjobber is baffled as well. Who wouldn’t be?

Comments (46) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

April 16, 2014

Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

See Arr Oh expresses some doubts about all the NMR spectral corrections we've been seeing lately. He's specifically referring to Bethany Halford's interview piece, and he has this to say after reading it:

If your group focuses on "clean up your spectra" more than "purify your compounds better," that's a communications issue. If a professor with a large group sees nothing but perfect spectra all day, two thoughts should crop up:

1. "I must have the smartest, most efficient students in the world," or...
2. "Something's fishy here."

Perfect-looking data should always be a cause for concern in any experiment. My guess is that Prof. Fukuyama was closer to Option One, though, possibly in the variant of "My group has such high standards!" But high standards or not, a series of perfect, flat, NMR spectra with no solvent and no impurities is rather hard to achieve in total synthesis, considering the quantities that are being used. Load up the tube with 50mg of material and you can make a lot of stuff look good, but you don't have fifty mgs at step thirty-four, do you? I remember putting everything I had into one NMR tube (or worse, one polarimeter tube) in my own total synthesis days, and I carried the thing down to the machine like it was a bag of gold.

But there's no doubt that in a big group, there will be people who try to slip things past the boss. I've seen it myself; I'm sure that a lot of you have. And if you're giving the boss exactly what the boss wants to see - perfection - then it's going to be a lot easier. These spectral problems look like a collaborative effort to me - expectations from above, willingness from below. And there are a lot of other groups that have done (and, I feel sure, still do) the same thing. Zapping the solvent peaks in the NMR is the least of it, in some cases.

Update: added a direct link to the Fukuyama/Yokoshima interview.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

April 14, 2014

More on the Science Chemogenomic Signatures Paper

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This will be a long one. I'm going to take another look at the Science paper that stirred up so much comment here on Friday. In that post, my first objection (but certainly not my only one) was the chemical structures shown in the paper's Figure 2. A number of them are basically impossible, and I just could not imagine how this got through any sort of refereeing process. There is, for example, a cyclohexadien-one structure, shown at left, and that one just doesn't exist as such - it's phenol, and those equilibrium arrows, though very imbalanced, are still not drawn to scale.
Well, that problem is solved by those structures being intended as fragments, substructures of other molecules. But I'm still positive that no organic chemist was involved in putting that figure together, or in reviewing it, because the reason that I was confused (and many other chemists were as well) is that no one who knows organic chemistry draws substructures like this. What you want to do is put dashed bonds in there, or R groups, as shown. That does two things: it shows that you're talking about a whole class of compounds, not just the structure shown, and it also shows where things are substituted. Now, on that cyclohexadienone, there's not much doubt where it's substituted, once you realize that someone actually intended it to be a fragment. It can't exist unless that carbon is tied up, either with two R groups (as shown), or with an exo-alkene, in which case you have a class of compounds called quinone methides. We'll return to those in a bit, but first, another word about substructures and R groups.
Figure 2 also has many structures in it where the fragment structure, as drawn, is a perfectly reasonable molecule (unlike the example above). Tetrahydrofuran and imidazole appear, and there's certainly nothing wrong with either of those. But if you're going to refer to those as common fragments, leading to common effects, you have to specify where they're substituted, because that can make a world of difference. If you still want to say that they can be substituted at different points, then you can draw a THF, for example, with a "floating" R group as shown at left. That's OK, and anyone who knows organic chemistry will understand what you mean by it. If you just draw THF, though, then an organic chemist will understand that to mean just plain old THF, and thus the misunderstanding.

If the problems with this paper ended at the level of structure drawing, which many people will no doubt see as just a minor aesthetic point, then I'd be apologizing right now. Update: although it is irritating. On Twitter, I just saw that someone spotted "dihydrophyranone" on this figure, which someone figured was close enough to "dihydropyranone", I guess, and anyway, it's just chemistry. But they don't. It struck me when I first saw this work that sloppiness in organic chemistry might be symptomatic of deeper trouble, and I think that's the case. The problems just keep on coming. Let's start with those THF and imidazole rings. They're in Figure 2 because they're supposed to be substructures that lead to some consistent pathway activity in the paper's huge (and impressive) yeast screening effort. But what we're talking about is a pharmacophore, to use a term from medicinal chemistry, and just "imidazole" by itself is too small a structure, from a library of 3200 compounds, to be a likely pharmacophore. Particularly when you're not even specifying where it's substituted and how. There are all kinds of imidazole out there, and they do all kinds of things.
So just how many imidazoles are in the library, and how many caused this particular signature? I think I've found them all. Shown at left are the four imidazoles (and there are only four) that exhibit the activity shown in Figure 2 (ergosterol depletion / effects on membrane). Note that all four of them are known antifungals - which makes sense, given that the compounds were chosen for the their ability to inhibit the growth of yeast, and topical antifungals will indeed do that for you. And that phenotype is exactly what you'd expect from miconazole, et al., because that's their known mechanism of action: they mess up the synthesis of ergosterol, which is an essential part of the fungal cell membrane. It would be quite worrisome if these compounds didn't show up under that heading. (Note that miconazole is on the list twice).
But note that there are nine other imidazoles that don't have that same response signature at all - and I didn't even count the benzimidazoles, and there are many, although from that structure in Figure 2, who's to say that they shouldn't be included? What I'm saying here is that imidazole by itself is not enough. A majority of the imidazoles in this screen actually don't get binned this way. You shouldn't look at a compound's structure, see that it has an imidazole, and then decide by looking at Figure 2 that it's therefore probably going to deplete ergosterol and lead to membrane effects. (Keep in mind that those membrane effects probably aren't going to show up in mammalian cells, anyway, since we don't use ergosterol that way).

There are other imidazole-containing antifungals on the list that are not marked down for "ergosterol depletion / effects on membrane". Ketonconazole is SGTC_217 and 1066, and one of those runs gets this designation, while the other one gets signature 118. Both bifonazole and sertaconazole also inhibit the production of ergosterol - although, to be fair, bifonazole does it by a different mechanism. It gets annotated as Response Signature 19, one of the minor ones, while sertaconazole gets marked down for "plasma membrane distress". That's OK, though, because it's known to have a direct effect on fungal membranes separate from its ergosterol-depleting one, so it's believable that it ends up in a different category. But there are plenty of other antifungals on this list, some containing imidazoles and some containing triazoles, whose mechanism of action is also known to be ergosterol depletion. Fluconazole, for example, is SGTC_227, 1787 and 1788, and that's how it works. But its signature is listed as "Iron homeostasis" once and "azole and statin" twice. Itraconzole is SGTC_1076, and it's also annotated as Response Signature 19. Voriconazole is SGTC_1084, and it's down as "azole and statin". Climbazole is SGTC_2777, and it's marked as "iron homeostasis" as well. This scattering of known drugs between different categories is possibly and indicator of this screen's ability to differentiate them, or possibly an indicator of its inherent limitations.

Now we get to another big problem, the imidazolium at the bottom of Figure 2. It is, as I said on Friday, completely nuts to assign a protonated imidazole to a different category than a nonprotonated one. Note that several of the imidazole-containing compounds mentioned above are already protonated salts - they, in fact, fit the imidazolium structure drawn, rather than the imidazole one that they're assigned to. This mistake alone makes Figure 2 very problematic indeed. If the paper was, in fact, talking about protonated imidazoles (which, again, is what the authors have drawn) it would be enough to immediately call into question the whole thing, because a protonated imidazole is the same as a regular imidazole when you put it into a buffered system. In fact, if you go through the list, you find that what they're actually talking about are N-alkylimidazoliums, so the structure at the bottom of FIgure 2 is wrong, and misleading. There are two compounds on the list with this signature, in case you were wondering, but the annotation may well be accurate, because some long-chain alkylimidazolium compounds (such as ionic liquid components) are already known to cause mitochondrial depolarization.

But there are several other alkylimidazolium compounds in the set (which is a bit odd, since they're not exactly drug-like). And they're not assigned to the mitochondrial distress phenotype, as Figure 2 would have you think. SGTC_1247, 179, 193, 1991, 327, and 547 all have this moeity, and they scatter between several other categories. Once again, a majority of compounds with the Figure 2 substructure don't actually map to the phenotype shown (while plenty of other structural types do). What use, exactly, is Figure 2 supposed to be?

Let's turn to some other structures in it. The impossible/implausible ones, as mentioned above, turn out to be that way because they're supposed to have substituents on them. But look around - adamantane is on there. To put it as kindly as possible, adamantane itself is not much of a pharmacophore, having nothing going for it but an odd size and shape for grease. Tetrahydrofuran (THF) is on there, too, and similar objections apply. When attempts have been made to rank the sorts of functional groups that are likely to interact with protein binding sites, ethers always come out poorly. THF by itself is not some sort of key structural unit; highlighting it as one here is, for a medicinal chemist, distinctly weird.

What's also weird is when I search for THF-containing compounds that show this activity signature, I can't find much. The only things with a THF ring in them seem to be SGTC_2563 (the complex natural product tomatine) and SGTC_3239, and neither one of them is marked with the signature shown. There are some imbedded THF rings as in the other structural fragments shown (the succinimide-derived Diels-Alder ones), but no other THFs - and as mentioned, it's truly unlikely that the ether is the key thing about these compounds, anyway. If anyone finds another THF compound annotated for tubulin folding, I'll correct this post immediately, but for now, I can't seem to track one down, even though Table S4 says that there are 65 of them. Again, what exactly is Figure 2 supposed to be telling anyone?

Now we come to some even larger concerns. The supplementary material for the paper says that 95% of the compounds on the list are "drug-like" and were filtered by the commercial suppliers to eliminate reactive compounds. They do caution that different people have different cutoffs for this sort of thing, and boy, do they ever. There are many, many compounds in this collection that I would not have bothered putting into a cell assay, for fear of hitting too many things and generating uninterpretable data. Quinone methides are a good example - as mentioned before, they're in this set. Rhodanines and similar scaffolds are well represented, and are well known to hit all over the place. Some of these things are tested at hundreds of micromolar.

I recognize that one aim of a study like this is to stress the cells by any means necessary and see what happens, but even with that in mind, I think fewer nasty compounds could have been used, and might have given cleaner data. The curves seen in the supplementary data are often, well, ugly. See the comments section from the Friday post on that, but I would be wary of interpreting many of them myself.
There's another problem with these compounds, which might very well have also led to the nastiness of the assay curves. As mentioned on Friday, how can anyone expect many of these compounds to actually be soluble at the levels shown? I've shown a selection of them here; I could go on. I just don't see any way that these compounds can be realistically assayed at these levels. Visual inspection of the wells would surely show cloudy gunk all over the place. Again, how are such assays to be interpreted?

And one final point, although it's a big one. Compound purity. Anyone who's ever ordered three thousand compounds from commercial and public collections will know, will be absolutely certain that they will not all be what they say on the label. There will be many colors and consistencies, and LC/MS checks will show many peaks for some of these. There's no way around it; that's how it is when you buy compounds. I can find no evidence in the paper or its supplementary files that any compound purity assays were undertaken at any point. This is not just bad procedure; this is something that would have caused me to reject the paper all by itself had I refereed it. This is yet another sign that no one who's used to dealing with medicinal chemistry worked on this project. No one with any experience would just bung in three thousand compounds like this and report the results as if they're all real. The hits in an assay like this, by the way, are likely to be enriched in crap, making this more of an issue than ever.

Damn it, I hate to be so hard on so many people who did so much work. But wasn't there a chemist anywhere in the room at any point?

Comments (39) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | Chemical Biology | Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

April 11, 2014

Biology Maybe Right, Chemistry Ridiculously Wrong

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Note: critique of this paper continues here, in another post.

A reader sent along a puzzled note about this paper that's out in Science. It's from a large multicenter team (at least nine departments across the US, Canada, and Europe), and it's an ambitious effort to profile 3250 small molecules in a broad chemogenomics screen in yeast. This set was selected from an earlier 50,000 compounds, since these realiably inhibited the growth of wild-type yeast. They're looking for what they call "chemogenomic fitness signatures", which are derived from screening first against 1100 heterozygous yeast strains, one gene deletion per, representing the yeast essential genome. Then there's a second round of screening against 4800 homozygous deletions strain of non-essential genes, to look for related pathways, compensation, and so on.

All in all, they identified 317 compounds that appear to perturb 121 genes, and many of these annotations are new. Overall, the responses tended to cluster in related groups, and the paper goes into detail about these signatures (and about the outliers, which are naturally interested for their own reasons). Broad pathway effects like mitrochondrial stress show up pretty clearly, for example. And unfortunately, that's all I'm going to say for now about the biology, because we need to talk about the chemistry in this paper. It isn't good.

phenol.pngAs my correspondent (a chemist himself) mentions, a close look at Figure 2 of the paper raises some real questions. Take a look at that cyclohexadiene enamine - can that really be drawn correctly, or isn't it just N-phenylbenzylamine? The problem is, that compound (drawn correctly) shows up elsewhere in Figure 2, hitting a completely different pathway. These two tautomers are not going to have different biological effects, partly because the first one would exist for about two molecular vibrations before it converted to the second. But how could both of them appear on the same figure?

And look at what they're calling "cyclohexa-2,4-dien-1-one". No such compound exists as such in the real world - we call it phenol, and we draw it as an aromatic ring with an OH coming from it. Thiazolidinedione is listed as "thiazolidine-2,4-quinone". Both of these would lead to red "X" marks on an undergraduate exam paper. It is clear that no chemist, not even someone who's been through second-year organic class, was involved in this work (or at the very least, involved in the preparation of Figure 2). Why not? Who reviewed this, anyway?

There are some unusual features from a med-chem standpoint as well. Is THF really targeting tubulin folding? Does adamantane really target ubiquinone biosynthesis? Fine, these are the cellular effects that they noted, I guess. But the weirdest thing on Figure 2's annotations is that imidazole is shown as having one profile, while protonated imidazole is shown as a completely different one. How is this possible? How could anyone who knows any chemistry look at that and not raise an eyebrow? Isn't this assay run in some sort of buffered medium? Don't yeast cells have any buffering capacity of their own? Salts of basic amine drugs are dosed all the time, and they are not considered - ever - as having totally different cellular effects. What a world it would be if that were true! Seeing this sort of thing makes a person wonder about the rest of the paper.

Nitro.pngMore subtle problems emerge when you go to the supplementary material and take a look at the list of compounds. It's a pretty mixed bag. The concentrations used for the assays vary widely - rapamycin gets run at 1 micromolar, while ketoconazole is nearly 1 millimolar. (Can you even run that compound at that concentration? Or that compound at left at 967 micromolar? Is it really soluble in the yeast wells at such levels? There are plenty more that you can wonder about in the same way.

And I went searching for my old friends, the rhodanines, and there they were. Unfortunately, compound SGTC_2454 is 5-benzylidenerhodanine, whose activity is listed as "A dopamine receptor inhibitor" (!). But compound SGTC_1883 is also 5-benzylidenerhodanine, the same compound, run at similar concentration, but this time unannotated. The 5-thienylidenerhodanine is SGTC_30, but that one's listed as a phosphatase inhibitor. Neither of these attributions seem likely to me. There are other duplicates, but many of them are no doubt intentional (run by different parts of the team).

I hate to say this, but just a morning's look at this paper leaves me with little doubt that there are still more strange things buried in the chemistry side of this paper. But since I work for a living (dang it), I'm going to leave it right here, because what I've already noted is more than troubling enough. These mistakes are serious, and call the conclusions of the paper into question: if you can annotate imidazole and its protonated form into two different categories, or annotate two different tautomers (one of which doesn't really exist) into two different categories, what else is wrong, and how much are these annotations worth? And this isn't even the first time that Science has let something like this through. Back in 2010, they published a paper on the "Reactome" that had chemists around the world groaning. How many times does this lesson need to be learned, anyway?

Update: this situation brings up a number of larger issues, such as the divide between chemists and biologists (especially in academia?) and the place of organic chemistry in such high-profile publications (and the place of organic chemists as reviewers of it). I'll defer these to another post, but believe me, they're on my mind.

Update 2 Jake Yeston, deputy editor at Science, tells me that they're looking into this situation. More as I hear it.

Update 3: OK, if Figure 2 is just fragments, structural pieces that were common to compounds that had these signatures, then (1) these are still not acceptable structures, even as fragments, and (2), many of these don't make sense from a medicinal chemistry standpoint. It's bizarre to claim a tetrahydrofuran ring (for example) as the key driver for a class of compounds; the chance that this group is making an actual, persistent interaction with some protein site (or family of sites) is remote indeed. The imidazole/protonated imidazole pair is a good example of this: why on Earth would you pick these two groups to illustrate some chemical tendency? Again, this looks like the work of people who don't really have much chemical knowledge.

0560-0053.pngA closer look at the compounds themselves does not inspire any more confidence. There's one of them from Table S3, which showed a very large difference in IC50 across different yeast strains. It was tested at 400 micromolar. That, folks, was sold to the authors of this paper by ChemDiv, as part of a "drug-like compound" library. Try pulling some SMILES strings from that table yourself and see what you think about their drug likeness.

Comments (130) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical Biology | Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

April 3, 2014

More Fukuyama Corrections

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The Fukuyama group has another series of corrections out, this time in JACS. Here's one, and the other follow right behind it in the ASAP queue. This adds to the string of them in Organic Letters. It's more whiteout stuff - vanishing solvent peaks and impurities. These presumably don't affect the conclusions of the paper, but they don't make a person any more confident, either. One hopes that these high-profile cases will shake people up. . .

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 28, 2014

More on the UT-Austin Retraction Case

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I mentioned an unusual retraction from Organic Letters here last year, and here's some follow-up to the story:

Nearly six years after Suvi Orr received a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Texas, the university told her it has decided to do something that institutions of higher learning almost never do: revoke
the degree. Orr, in turn, has sued UT in an effort to hold onto the doctorate that launched her career in the pharmaceutical industry.

Her lawsuit in state district court in Travis County contends that revocation is unwarranted and that the university violated her rights by not letting her defend herself before the dissertation committee that condemned her research long after she graduated. In addition, she says, the committee relied heavily on her former professor, who, she claims, was motivated to “cast the blame elsewhere.”

What a mess. More details as things develop. . .

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

March 21, 2014

Dosing by Body Surface Area

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

We were talking about allometry around here the other day, which prompts me to mention this paper. It used the reports of resveratrol dosing in animals, crudely extrapolated to humans, to argue that the body surface area normalization (BSA) method was a superior technique for dose estimation across species.

Over the years, though, the BSA method has taken some flak in the literature. It's most widely used in oncology, especially with cytotoxics, but there have been calls to move away from the practice, calling it a relic with little scientific foundation. (The rise of a very obese patient population has also led to controversy about whether body weight or surface area is a more appropriate dose-estimation method in those situations). At the same time, it's proven useful in some other situations, so it can't be completely ignored.

But it seems that the FASEB paper referenced in the first paragraph, which has been cited hundreds of times since 2008, may be overstating its conclusions. For example, it says that "BSA normalization of doses must be used to determine safe starting doses of new drugs because initial studies conducted in humans, by definition, lack formal allometric comparison of the pharmacokinetics of absorption, distribution, and elimination parameters", and cites its reference 13 for support. But when you go to that reference, you find that paper's authors concluding with things like this:

The customary use of BSA in dose calculations may contribute to the omission of these factors, give a false sense of accuracy and introduce error. It is questionable whether all current cancer treatment strategies are near optimal, or even ethical. BSA should be used for allometric scaling purposes in phase I clinical trials, as the scaling of toxicity data from animals is important for selecting starting doses in man, but the gradual discontinuation of BSA-based dosing of cytotoxic drugs in clinical practice is seemingly justified.

Citing a paper for support that flatly disagrees with your conclusions gets some points for bravado, but otherwise seems a bit odd. And there are others - that reference that I linked to in the second paragraph above, under "taken some flak", is cited in the FASEB paper as its reference 17, as something to do with choosing between various BSA equations. And it does address that, to be sure, but in the context of wondering whether the whole BSA technique has any clinical validity at all.

This is currently being argued out over at PubPeer, and it should be interesting to see what comes of it. I'll be glad to hear from pharmacokinetics and clinical research folks to see what they make of the whole situation.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Pharmacokinetics | The Scientific Literature

March 20, 2014

Years Worth of the Stuff

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

bAP15.pngThis time last year I mentioned a particularly disturbing-looking compound, sold commercially as a so-called "selective inhibitor" of two deubiquitinase enzymes. Now, I have a fairly open mind about chemical structures, but that thing is horrible, and if it's really selective for just those two proteins, then I'm off to truck-driving school just like Mom always wanted.

Here's an enlightening look through the literature at this whole class of compound, which has appeared again and again. The trail seems to go back to this 2001 paper in Biochemistry. By 2003, you see similar motifs showing up as putative anticancer agents in cell assays, and in 2006 the scaffold above makes its appearance in all its terrible glory.

The problem is, as Jonathan Baell points out in that post, that this series has apparently never really had a proper look at its SAR, or at its selectivity. It wanders through a series of publications full of on-again off-again cellular readouts, with a few tenuous conclusions drawn about its structure - and those are discarded or forgotten by the time the next paper comes around. As Baell puts it:

The dispiriting thing is that with or without critical analysis, this compound is almost certainly likely to end up with vendors as a “useful tool”, as they all do. Further, there will be dozens if not hundreds of papers out there where entirely analogous critical analyses of paper trails are possible.

The bottom line: people still don’t realize how easy it is to get a biological readout. The more subversive a compound, the more likely this is. True tools and most interesting compounds usually require a lot more medicinal chemistry and are often left behind or remain undiscovered.

Amen to that. There is way too much of this sort of thing in the med-chem literature already. I'm a big proponent of phenotypic screening, but setting up a good one is harder than setting up a good HTS, and working up the data from one is much harder than working up the data from an in vitro assay. The crazier or more reactive your "hit" seems to be, the more suspicious you should be.

The usual reply to that objection is "Tool compound!" But the standards for a tool compound, one used to investigate new biology and cellular pathways, are higher than usual. How are you going to unravel a biochemical puzzle if you're hitting nine different things, eight of which you're totally unaware of? Or skewing your assay readouts by some other effect entirely? This sort of thing happens all the time.

I can't help but think about such things when I read about a project like this one, where IBM's Watson software is going to be used to look at sequences from glioblastoma patients. That's going to be tough, but I think it's worth a look, and the Watson program seems to be just the correlation-searcher for the job. But the first thing they did was feed in piles of biochemical pathway data from the literature, and the problem is, a not insignificant proportion of that data is wrong. Statements like these are worrisome:

Over time, Watson will develop its own sense of what sources it looks at are consistently reliable. . .if the team decides to, it can start adding the full text of articles and branch out to other information sources. Between the known pathways and the scientific literature, however, IBM seems to think that Watson has a good grip on what typically goes on inside cells.

Maybe Watson can tell the rest of us, then. Because I don't know of anyone actually doing cell biology who feels that way, not if they're being honest with themselves. I wish the New York Genome Center and IBM luck in this, and I still think it's a worthwhile thing to at least try. But my guess is that it's going to be a humbling experience. Even if all the literature were correct in every detail, I think it would be one. And the literature is not correct in every detail. It has compounds like that one at the top of the entry in it, and people seem to think that they can draw conclusions from them.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | Cancer | Chemical Biology | Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

March 19, 2014

More Things Synthetic Chemists Hate

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I enjoyed this post over at Synthetic Remarks on "Five things synthetic chemists hate". And I agree; I hate all of 'em, too. Allow me to add a few to the list:

1. The Mysterious Starting Material. How many times have you looked through an experimental section only to see a synthesis start cold, from a non-commercial compound whose preparation isn't given, or even referenced? One that doesn't seem to have any foundation anywhere else in the literature, either? I think that this is a bit more common in the older literature, but it shouldn't be happening anywhere.

2. It Works on Benzaldehyde; What More Do You Want? What about those new method papers that include a wide, diverse array of examples showing how versatile the new reaction is - but when you look at the list, you realize that it's full of things like cyclohexanone, benzaldehyde. . .and then 4-methylcyclohexanone, p-fluorobenzaldehyde, and so on? Turns out that the reaction lands flat on its nose, stretched out on the sand if there's a basic amine within five hundred yards. But you have to find that out for yourself. It ain't in the text.

3. The Paper Chase. In these days of humungous supplementary info files, what excuse is there to write a paper where all the reactions use one particular reagent - and then send people back to your previous paper to learn how to make it? Sure, reference yourself. But don't march everyone back to a whole other experimental. Are authors getting some sort of nickel-a-page-view deal from the publishers now that I haven't heard about?

4. If I Don't See It, It Isn't There. When I review papers, one of the things I end up dinging people about, more than anything else, is the reluctance to cite relevant literature. In some cases, it's carelessness, but in others, well. . .everyone's seen papers that basically rework someone else's reaction without ever citing the original. And in these days of modern times, as the Firesign Theatre guys used to say, what excuse is there?

5. Subtle Is the Lord. Once in a while, you find an experimental writeup that makes you wrinkle your brow and wonder if someone's pulling your leg. The reaction gets run at -29 degrees C, for 10.46 hours, whereupon it's brought up to -9 and quenched with pH 7.94 buffer solution. That kind of thing. If you're going to put that Proustian level of detail in there, you'd better have a reason (Proust did). No one just stumbles into conditions like that - what happened when you ran your reaction like a normal human, instead of like Vladimir Nabokov on Adderall?

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

March 17, 2014

What If Total Syntheses Had Only 25 Steps to Work In?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Via the Baran lab's Twitter feed, here's a provocative article on whether total organic synthesis has a place in the modern world or not.

One may wonder why this situation has passed undisputed for such a long time. Currently however, wide parts of the chemical community look upon total synthesis as a waste of time, resources and talents. Behind the scene, it may even be argued that the obsession to synthesize almost any natural product irrespective of its complexity and practical importance has blocked the development of other more relevant fields. Therefore, it is high time to consider a reorientation of the entire discipline

That's a bit of a straw man in that paragraph, and I have to note it, even though I do feel odd sticking up for total synthesis (about which I've been pretty caustic myself, for many years now.). I don't think that there's been an "obsession to synthesize almost any natural product", although it's true that many new synthetic methods have used some natural product or another as demonstration pieces. But the author, Johann Mulzer, came out of the Corey group in the old days, and has spent his career doing total synthesis, so he's speaking from experience here.

He goes on to argue that the field does have a place, but that it had better shape up. Short syntheses have to take priority over "first syntheses", because (let's face it), just about anything can be made if you're willing to throw enough time, money, and postdocs at it. The paper is full of examples from Mulzer's own career (and others'), and if you read it carefully, you'll see some unfavorable contrasts drawn to some Nicolaou syntheses. He finishes up:

In conclusion, this article tries to show how various strategies may be used to streamline and to shorten otherwise long synthetic routes to complex target molecules. The reader may get the impression that it pays very well to think intensively about cascade reactions, intramolecular cycloadditions, suitable starting materials and so on, instead of plunging into a brute-force and therefore mostly inefficient sequence. After all, there is an iron maxim: if a target cannot be reached within, say, 25 steps, it is better to drop it. For what you will get is a heroic synthesis, at best, but never an efficient one.

A 25-step limit would chop an awful lot out of the synthetic literature, wouldn't it? But it's not fair to apply that retrospectively. What if we apply it from here on out, though? What would the total synthetic landscape look like then?

Comments (46) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

March 14, 2014

Going After Poor Published Research

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This should be interesting - John Ioannidis, scourge of poorly reproducible published results, is founding an institute at Stanford. The Economist has more:

They will create a “journal watch” to monitor scientific publishers’ work and to shame laggards into better behaviour. And they will spread the message to policymakers, governments and other interested parties, in an effort to stop them making decisions on the basis of flaky studies. All this in the name of the centre’s nerdishly valiant mission statement: “Identifying and minimising persistent threats to medical-research quality.”

It will be most interesting to see what comes of this. Better quality research is in everyone's best interest, to put it mildly, and I hope that this leads to some.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 6, 2014

We Are Pleased To Publish Your Senseless Ravings

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's been some (justified) hand-wringing in scientific publishing circles over the revelation that at least 120 abstracts and papers out there in the literature are complete nonsense generated by SciGen. (A few previous SciGen adventures can be found here and here) Some news reports have made it seem like these were regular full papers, but they're actually published conference proceedings which (frankly) are sort of the ugly stepchild of the science journal world to begin with. They're supposed to be reviewed, and they certainly should have been reviewed enough for someone to catch on to the fact that they were devoid of meaning, but if you're going to fill the pages of a reputable publisher with Aphasio-matic ramblings, that's the way to do it.

And these were reputable publishers, Springer and the IEEE. Springer has announced that they're removing all this stuff from their databases, since the normal retraction procedure doesn't exactly seem necessary. They're also trying to figure out what loophole let this happen in the first place, and they've contacted Cyril Labbé, the French researcher who wrote the SciGen-detecting software, for advice. The IEEE, for its part, has had this problem before, has had it for years, has been warned about it, but still seems to be ready and willing to publish gibberish. I don't know if Springer has had bad experiences with SciGen material, but the IEEE journals sure have, and it's apparently done no good at all. Live and don't learn. The organization has apparently removed the papers, but has made (as far as I can tell) no public statement whatsoever about the whole incident.

So who went to all this trouble, anyway? That Scholarly Kitchen link above has some speculations:

An additional (and even more disturbing) problem with the proceedings papers most recently discovered is emerging as the investigation continues: at least one of the authors contacted had no idea that he had been named as a coauthor. This suggests that the submissions were more than spoofs — spoofing can easily be accomplished by using fake names as well as fake content. The use of real scientists’ names suggests that at least some of these papers represent intentional scholarly fraud, probably with the intention of adding bulk to scholars’ résumés.

This takes us back to the open-access versus traditional publisher wars. When this sort of thing happens to OA journals, the response from some of the other publishers, overtly at times, is "Well, yeah, sure, that's what you get when you don't go with the name brand". And there's certainly a lot of weird crap that shows up - take a look at this thing, from the open access journal Cancer Research and Management, and see if you can make head or tail of it. Clozapine might have helped it a bit, but maybe not:

Our findings suggest that we are dealing with true reverse biologic system information in an activated collective cancer stem cell memory, in which physics participates in the elaboration of geometric complexes and chiral biomolecules that serve to build bodies with embryoid print as it develops during gestation.

That's a little more coherent than what SciGen will give you, but not so coherent as to, you know, make any sense. And if by any chance you were OK with that extract, the rest of the abstract mentions comets and the Large Hadron Collider, so take that. It lacks only gyres (don't we all?) But what this latest incident tells us is that this paper would have waltzed right in at plenty of other publishers, open-access or not. The authors should be aiming higher, y'know?

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 3, 2014

Sydney Brenner on the State of Science

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Via Retraction Watch, here's an outspoken interview with Sydney Brenner, who's never been the sort of person to keep his opinions bottled up inside him. Here, for example, are his views on graduate school in the US:

Today the Americans have developed a new culture in science based on the slavery of graduate students. Now graduate students of American institutions are afraid. He just performs. He’s got to perform. The post-doc is an indentured labourer. We now have labs that don’t work in the same way as the early labs where people were independent, where they could have their own ideas and could pursue them.

The most important thing today is for young people to take responsibility, to actually know how to formulate an idea and how to work on it. Not to buy into the so-called apprenticeship. I think you can only foster that by having sort of deviant studies. That is, you go on and do something really different. Then I think you will be able to foster it.

But today there is no way to do this without money. That’s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported. The supporters now, the bureaucrats of science, do not wish to take any risks. So in order to get it supported, they want to know from the start that it will work. This means you have to have preliminary information, which means that you are bound to follow the straight and narrow.

I can't argue with that. In academia these days, it seems to me that the main way that something really unusual or orthogonal gets done is by people doing something else with their grant money than they told people they'd do. Which has always been the case to some extent, but I get the impression it's more so than ever. The article also quotes from Brenner's appreciation of the late Fred Sanger, where he made a similar point:

A Fred Sanger would not survive today’s world of science. With continuous reporting and appraisals, some committee would note that he published little of import between insulin in 1952 and his first paper on RNA sequencing in 1967 with another long gap until DNA sequencing in 1977. He would be labelled as unproductive, and his modest personal support would be denied. We no longer have a culture that allows individuals to embark on long-term—and what would be considered today extremely risky—projects.

Here are Brenner's mild, temperate views on the peer-review system and its intersection with academic publishing:

. . .I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.

Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organisations making money out of it.

I don't find a lot to disagree with there, either. The big scientific publishers have some good people working for them, but the entire cause is more and more suspect. THere's a huge moral hazard involved, which we don't seem to be avoiding very well at all.

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: General Scientific News | The Scientific Literature

February 26, 2014

Changes in Papers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a look at some of the changes in JACS papers over the decades. Several trends are clear - there are more authors now, and single-author papers have almost vanished. Reference lists are much longer (which surely reflects both the sie of the literature and the relative ease of bibliography compared to the bound-volume/index card days). Have a look at the charts - François-Xavier Coudert, the blog's author, says that he'll be putting up some more later on, and I look forward to seeing what comes up.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 20, 2014

The NIH Takes a Look At How the Money's Spent

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The NIH is starting to wonder what bang-for-the-buck it gets for its grant money. That's a tricky question at best - some research takes a while to make an impact, and the way that discoveries can interact is hard to predict. And how do you measure impact, by the way? These are all worthy questions, but here's apparently the way things are being approached:

Michael Lauer's job at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to fund the best cardiology research and to disseminate the results rapidly to other scientists, physicians, and the public. But NIH's peer-review system, which relies on an army of unpaid volunteer scientists to prioritize grant proposals, may be making it harder to achieve that goal. Two recent studies by Lauer, who heads the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences at NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in Bethesda, Maryland, raise some disturbing questions about a system used to distribute billions of dollars of federal funds each year.

(MiahcalLauer recently analyzed the citation record of papers generated by nearly 1500 grants awarded by NHLBI to individual investigators between 2001 and 2008. He was shocked by the results, which appeared online last month in Circulation Research: The funded projects with the poorest priority scores from reviewers garnered just as many citations and publications as those with the best scores. That was the case even though low-scoring researchers had been given less money than their top-rated peers.

I understand that citations and publications are measurable, while most other ways to gauge importance aren't. But that doesn't mean that they're any good, and I worry that the system is biased enough already towards making these the coin of the realm. This sort of thing worries me, too:

Still, (Richard) Nakamura is always looking for fresh ways to assess the performance of study sections. At the December meeting of the CSR advisory council, for example, he and Tabak described one recent attempt that examined citation rates of publications generated from research funded by each panel. Those panels with rates higher than the norm—represented by the impact factor of the leading journal in that field—were labeled "hot," while panels with low scores were labeled "cold."

"If it's true that hotter science is that which beats the journals' impact factors, then you could distribute more money to the hot committees than the cold committees," Nakamura explains. "But that's only if you believe that. Major corporations have tried to predict what type of science will yield strong results—and we're all still waiting for IBM to create a machine that can do research with the highest payoff," he adds with tongue in cheek.

"I still believe that scientists ultimately beat metrics or machines. But there are serious challenges to that position. And the question is how to do the research that will show one approach is better than another."

I'm glad that he doesn't seem to be taking this approach completely seriously, but others may. If only impact factors and citation rates were real things that advanced human knowledge, instead of games played by publishers and authors!

Comments (34) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

February 19, 2014

Robo-Combing the Chemistry Literature For Mistakes

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This is a very timely post indeed from Peter Murray-Rust. He's describing a system that his group has developed (ChemVisitor) to dig through the chemical literature looking for incorrect structures (and much more).

He shows examples from an open-access paper, in which one of the structures is in fact misdrawn. But how would Elsevier, Nature, the ACS, Wiley or the other big publishers take to having these things highlighted every day of the week. Not well:

So try it for yourself. Which compound is wrong? (*I* don’t know yet) How would you find out? Maybe you would go to Chemical Abstracts (ACS). Last time I looked it cost 6USD to look up a compound. That’s 50 dollars, just to check whether the literature is right. And you would be forbidden from publishing what you found there (ACS sent the lawyers to Wikipedia for publishing CAS registry numbers). What about Elsevier’s Reaxys? Almost certainly as bad.

But isn’t there an Open collection of molecules? Pubchem in the NIH? Yes, and ACS lobbied on Capitol Hill to have it shut down as it was “socialised science instead of the private sector”. They nearly won. (Henry Rzepa and I ran a campaign to highlight the issue). So yes, we can use Pubchem and we have and that’s how Andy’s software discovered the mistake.

This was the first diagram we analysed. Does that mean that every paper in the literature contains mistakes?

Almost certainly yes.

But they have been peer-reviewed.

Yes – and we wrote software (OSCAR) 10 years ago that could do the machine reviewing. And it showed mistakes in virtually every paper.

So we plan to do this for every new paper. It’s technically possible. But if we do it what will happen?

If I sign the Elsevier content-mining click-through (I won’t) then I agree not to disadvantage Elsevier’s products. And pointing out publicly that they are full of errors might just do that. And if I don’t?…

This comment on Ycombinator is from someone who's seen some of the Murray-Rost group's software in action, and is very interesting indeed:

They can take an ancient paper with very low quality diagrams of complex chemical structures, parse the image into an open markup language and reconstruct the chemical formula and the correct image. Chemical symbols are just one of many plugins for their core software which interprets unstructured, information rich data like raster diagrams. They also have plugins for phylogenetic trees, plots, species names, gene names and reagents. You can develop plugins easily for whatever you want, and they're recruiting open source contributors (see,

As a side effect of how their software works, it can detect tiny suggestive imperfections in images that reveal scientific fraud. I was shown a demo where a trace from a mass spec (like this was analysed. As well as reading the data from the plot, it revealed a peak that had been covered up with a square - the author had deliberately obscured a peak in their data that was inconvenient. Scientific fraud. It's terrifying that they find this in most chemistry papers they analyse.

Peter's group can analyse thousands or hundreds of thousands of papers an hour, automatically detecting errors and fraud. . .

Unless I'm very much mistaken, we'll be hearing a lot more about this. It touches on the quality of the literature, the quality of the people writing the papers, and the business model(s) of the people publishing it all. And these are very, very relevant topics that are are getting more important all the time. . .

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 18, 2014

Thoughts on Overpublishing

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

My recent memorial notice for Alan Katritzky brought an interesting comment, by someone who did the math that I didn't. His total publication count actually seems to be 2215 papers published since 1953. That comes to one paper every ten days over sixty-one years. I have trouble even imagining that. This is a vast amount of work, both the chemistry and the writing, and it's a monument that very, very few people will leave behind them.

Should anyone, though? I mean no disrespect to Katritzky's memory by asking this question, let me note quickly. But I wrote about this here a few years ago, the idea that a person can, in fact, publish too many papers. My example then was H. C. Brown - I'm not sure how many papers he co-authored, but the figure is a large one and brings on similar thoughts.

There have been many scientists on the other end of the scale, going back to Isaac Newton, who had to be badgered into letting everyone know that he'd revolutionized physics. Lars Onsager is a good example from the physics/chemistry borderlands - there are stories told about the work he had stored away in his filing cabinets, a terrifying stockpile that most other people would have found very much to their credit to have published. This approach is clearly not the way to go, either - people don't have a chance to build on your work when they don't know about it, and others may spend a good amount of effort duplicating things when you could (and should) have saved them the effort.

But publishing thousands of papers doesn't seem like a good alternative, to be honest. People will have trouble sorting out the good parts, and they can't all be good parts. Time will settle that question, you might think, but time could bungle that job. Time has dropped the ball before.

Update: See Arr Oh did a very interesting list last year of the organic chemists who publish the most. Katritzky did indeed lead the field.

Comments (44) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

Not Again - Stem Cell Results in Trouble?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Oh, @#$!. That was my first comment when I saw this story. That extraordinary recent work on creating stem cells by subjected normal cells to acid stress is being investigated:

The RIKEN centre in Kobe announced on Friday that it is looking into alleged irregularities in the work of biologist Haruko Obokata, who works at the institution. She shot to fame last month as the lead author on two papers published in Nature that demonstrated a simple way to reprogram mature mice cells into an embryonic state by simply applying stress, such as exposure to acid or physical pressure on cell membranes. The RIKEN investigation follows allegations on blog sites about the use of duplicated images in Obokata’s papers, and numerous failed attempts to replicate her results.

PubPeer gets the credit for bringing some of the problems into the light. There are some real problems with figures in the two papers, as well as earlier ones from the same authors. These might be explicable as cimple mistakes, which is what the authors seem to be claiming, if it weren't for the fact that no one seems to be able to get the stem-cell results to reproduce. There are mitigating factors there, too - different cell lines, perhaps the lack of a truly detailed protocol from the original paper. But a paper should have enough details in it to be reproduced, shouldn't it?

Someone on Twitter was trying to tell me the other day that the whole reproducibility issue was being blown out of proportion. I don't think so. The one thing we seem to be able to reproduce is trouble.

Update: a list of the weirdest things (so far) about this whole business.

Comments (25) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

February 17, 2014

The Org Lett Spectral Hammer Falls Again

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I see that as of this moment, the five articles at the top of the Organic Letters ASAP feed are all corrections from the Nakada group. It looks to be the same situation as the Fukuyama corrections: NMR editing. The corrections (visible for free because you can see the first page) all mention that the conclusions of the papers are not altered, nor are the yields of products. So Amos Smith really is serious about his data-cleaning crusade, and I can see where he's coming from. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus. The only place to draw the line is right back at the start.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 14, 2014

"It Is Not Hard to Peddle Incoherent Math to Biologists"

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a nasty fight going on in molecular biology/bioinformatics. Lior Pachter of Berkeley describes some severe objections he has to published work from the lab of Manolis Kellis at MIT. (His two previous posts on these issues are here and here). I'm going to use a phrase that Pachter hears too often and say that I don't have the math to address those two earlier posts. But the latest one wraps things up in a form that everyone can understand. After describing what does look like a severe error in one of the Manolis group's conference presentations, which Pachter included in a review of the work, he says that:

. . .(they) spun the bad news they had received as “resulting from combinatorial connectivity patterns prevalent in larger network structures.” They then added that “…this combinatorial clustering effect brings into question the current definition of network motif” and proposed that “additional statistics…might well be suited to identify larger meaningful networks.” This is a lot like someone claiming to discover a bacteria whose DNA is arsenic-based and upon being told by others that the “discovery” is incorrect – in fact, that very bacteria seeks out phosphorous – responding that this is “really helpful” and that it “raises lots of new interesting open questions” about how arsenate gets into cells. Chutzpah. When you discover your work is flawed, the correct response is to retract it.

I don’t think people read papers very carefully. . .

He goes on to say:

I have to admit that after the Grochow-Kellis paper I was a bit skeptical of Kellis’ work. Not because of the paper itself (everyone makes mistakes), but because of the way he responded to my review. So a year and a half ago, when Manolis Kellis published a paper in an area I care about and am involved in, I may have had a negative prior. The paper was Luke Ward and Manolis Kellis “Evidence for Abundant and Purifying Selection in Humans for Recently Acquired Regulatory Functions”, Science 337 (2012) . Having been involved with the ENCODE pilot, where I contributed to the multiple alignment sub-project, I was curious what comparative genomics insights the full-scale $130 million dollar project revealed. The press releases accompanying the Ward-Kellis paper (e.g. The Nature of Man, The Economist) were suggesting that Ward and Kellis had figured out what makes a human a human; my curiosity was understandably piqued.

But a closer look at the paper, Pachter says, especially a dig into the supplementary material (always a recommended move) shows that the conclusions of the paper were based on what he terms "blatant statistically invalid cherry picking". See, I told you this was a fight. He also accuses Kellis of several other totally unacceptable actions in his published work, the sorts of things that cannot be brushed off as differences in interpretations or methods. He's talking fraud. And he has a larger point about how something like this might persist in the computational biology field (emphasis added):

Manolis Kellis’ behavior is part of a systemic problem in computational biology. The cross-fertilization of ideas between mathematics, statistics, computer science and biology is both an opportunity and a danger. It is not hard to peddle incoherent math to biologists, many of whom are literally math phobic. For example, a number of responses I’ve received to the Feizi et al. blog post have started with comments such as

“I don’t have the expertise to judge the math, …”

Similarly, it isn’t hard to fool mathematicians into believing biological fables. Many mathematicians throughout the country were recently convinced by Jonathan Rothberg to donate samples of their DNA so that they might find out “what makes them a genius”. Such mathematicians, and their colleagues in computer science and statistics, take at face value statements such as “we have figured out what makes a human human”. In the midst of such confusion, it is easy for an enterprising “computational person” to take advantage of the situation, and Kellis has.

You can peddle incoherent math to medicinal chemists, too, if you feel the urge. We don't use much of it day-to-day, although we've internalized more than we tend to realize. But if someone really wants to sell me on some bogus graph theory or topology, they'll almost certainly be able to manage it. I'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt, because I don't have the expertise to call them on it. Were I so minded, I could probably sell them some pretty shaky organic chemistry and pharmacokinetics.

But I am not so minded. Science is large, and we have to be able to trust each other. I could sit down and get myself up to speed on topology (say), if I had to, but the effort required would probably be better spent doing something else. (I'm not ruling out doing math recreationally, just for work). None of us can simultaneously be experts across all our specialities. So if this really is a case of publishing junk because, hey, who'll catch on, right, then it really needs to be dealt with.

If Pachter is off base, though, then he's in for a rough ride of his own. Looking over his posts, my money's on him and not Kellis, but we'll all have a chance to find out. After this very public calling out, there's no other outcome.

Comments (32) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | In Silico | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

February 12, 2014

Genius, Sheer Genius

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So we have bogus scientific journals out there, and we have people who will sell you results so you can make just-add-water papers for the real journals. And we have impact factors, the overuse of which leads to still more bogosity in every part of scientific publishing. So. . .why not sell fake impact factors? That way, you can harvest publication fees from credulous impact-seeking bozos. My Iranian wife tells me that there's a saying in Farsi that translates as "A thief robs a thief, and God smiles".

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 11, 2014

Pesticide Toxicity?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's been a report on the toxicity of various pesticides in the literature suggesting that they're far more toxic to human cells than had been thought. My eyebrows went up a bit when I heard this, because these sorts of assays had been done many times before. Then I realized that this was another paper from the Séralini group, and unfortunately, that alone is enough to account for the variance.

Update: commentors to this post have noted that the cell culture conditions used in the paper are rather unusual. Specifically, they're serum-free during the testing period, which puts the cells under stress to begin with. There's also the general problem, which others have brought up, about what it means to dispense these things directly onto cell cultures in diluted DMSO, since that's rather far from how they're going to be presented in the real world. Cell assays get run like that in the drug industry, to be sure, but you've got to be very careful drawing toxicological or other whole-animal conclusions from them. And we already have whole-animal studies on these formulations, don't we? I mean, juiced broccoli straight from the organic farmer's market might well have similar effects under these conditions.

Here's a story from Science with more background. Seralini is the guy who made headlines a couple of years ago with another report that genetically modified corn caused tumors in rodents, but that one was so poorly run and poorly controlled that its conclusions (which have not been seen in any other study) cannot be taken seriously. That's Séralini's problem right there: from all appearances, he's a passionate advocate for his positions, and he appears to be ready to go with whatever results line up with his beliefs. This is human nature, for sure, but science is about trying to work past those parts of human nature. The key is to keep the curious, inquisitive side, and correct for the confirmation bias I-know-I'm-right side. At this point, even if Séralini were to discover something real (and really worth taking seriously), it would have a hard time gaining acceptance, because his previous papers have been so unreliably over-the-top.

I'm not the only person who thinks that. An editor of the journal this latest Seralini paper appeared in has actually resigned because it got published:

When Ralf Reski read the latest paper from controversial French biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini, he quickly decided he wanted nothing to do with it. Séralini’s report in BioMed Research International describes how pesticides kill cultured human cells, with the hair-raising conclusion that pesticides may be vastly more toxic than assumed by regulatory authorities. Some scientists are criticizing the findings as neither surprising nor significant—but they have touched off a firestorm, with environmental groups calling for changes in how pesticides are regulated. That was too much for Reski. Within hours of reading the paper last week, the plant scientist at the University of Freiburg in Germany resigned as an editor of the journal and asked for his name to be removed from its website. "I do not want to be connected to a journal that provides [Séralini] a forum for such kind of agitation," he wrote in his resignation e-mail to the publisher, Hindawi Publishing Corporation.

Should pesticide toxicity be a subject of investigation? Absolutely. Should people be alert to assays that have not been run that should be investigated? Definitely. Are there things that we don't know about pesticide exposure that we should? I would certainly think so. But Séralini's history makes him (scientifically) one of the least effective people to be working on these questions. As a headline-grabber, though, he's pretty efficient. Which I suspect is the real point. If you're sure you're right, any weapon you can pick up is a good one.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Toxicology

February 10, 2014

Today We Have Naming of Parts

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I can strongly recommend this article by Carmen Drahl in C&E News on the way that we chemists pick fights over nomenclature. She has examples of several kinds of disagreement (competing terms for the same thing, terms that overlap but are still different, competing ways to measure something in different ways, and terms that are fuzzy enough that some want to eliminate them entirely).

As several of the interviewees note, these arguments are not (always) petty, and certainly not always irrational. Humans are good at reification - turning something into a "thing". Name a concept well, and it sort of shimmers into existence, giving people a way to refer to it as if it were a solid object in the world of experience. This has good and bad aspects. It's crucial to the ability to have any sort of intellectual discussion and progress, since we have to be able to speak of ideas and other entities that are not actual physical objects. But a badly fitting name can do real harm, obscuring the most valuable or useful parts of an idea and diverting thoughts about it unproductively.

My own favorite example is the use of "agonist" and "antagonist" to describe the actions of nuclear receptor ligands. This (to my way of thinking) is not only useless, but does real harm to the thinking of anyone who approaches nuclear receptors having first learned about GPCRs. Maybe the word "receptor" never should have been used for these things in the first place, although realizing that would have required supernatural powers of precognition.

There are any number of examples outside chemistry, of course. One of my own irritants is when someone says that something has been "taken to the next level". You would probably not survive watching a sports channel if that phrase were part of a drinking game. But it presupposes that some activity comes in measurable chunks, and that everyone agrees on what order they come in. I'm reminded of the old blenders with their dials clicking between a dozen arbitrary "levels", labeled with tags like "whip", "chop", and "liquify". Meaningless. It's an attempt to quantify - to reify - what should have been a smooth rheostat knob with lines around it.

OK, I'll stop before I bring up Wittgenstein. OK, too late. But he was on to something when he told people to be careful about the way language is used, and to watch out when you get out onto the "frictionless ice" of talking about constructions of thought. His final admonition in his Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus, that if we cannot speak about something that we have to pass over it in silence, has been widely quoted and widely unheeded, since we're all sure that we can, of course, speak about what we're speaking about. Can't we?

For today's post title, see here

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

A Timeline from Cell

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a very interesting feature from Cell - an interactive timeline on the journal's 40th anniversary, highlighting some of the key papers it's published over the years. This installment takes us up into the early 1980s. When you see the 1979 paper that brings the news that tyrosine groups on proteins actually get phosphorylated post-translation, the 1982 discovery of Ras as involved in human cancer cells, or another 1982 paper showing that telomeres have these weird repeating units on them, you realize how young the sciences molecular and cell biology really are.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

February 4, 2014

Put Down That White-Out; Drop That Photoshop Cursor

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've had some e-mails about this today: an impressive series of six corrections in Organic Letters (scroll down here). I guess Amos Smith was serious about his editorial last year on manipulation of spectra. All of these corrections are for NMR cleanup of just that variety (disappearing solvent and impurity peaks, along with restated reaction yields). We'll see if it can encourager les autres.

Update: See Arr Oh asks if the Fukuyama lab jumped, or were they pushed?

Comments (44) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 24, 2014

Are There Good Writers In This Business?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a question sent in by a reader that I actually have trouble answering: who would you say are the best writers of scientific papers in our field? I'm not necessarily talking about the results in those papers, as much as clear presentation and layout, written in a way that gets the point of the paper across without having to decode the thing.

It's tough, because writing a journal publication means operating under a variety of constraints. One of the biggest of those is word count (or page length). The fierce compression that this can bring on makes unpacking some papers a sentence-by-sentence excavation job, but it's not that the authors would write it like that if they weren't forced to. The opposite situation would be a disaster, too, though - there are, I'm sure, plenty of people who would just ramble on and on given unlimited page space to work with. Pascal's apology for writing such a long letter ("There was not enough time to write a shorter one") is germane. Rare is the first draft that can't be tightened up substantially, scientific publication or not.

But many journal articles are tightened up so hard that they twang when you try to read them. Maintaining clarity and flow under these conditions isn't easy, and I'd be interested to hear about people who manage to stand out enough to be noticed. And since this is a blog, and this is the internet, feel free to bring up examples from the other end of the scale - people whose papers are inevitably a chore. Nominees?

(My impression, by the way, is that well-written papers are more likely to be found in the older literature. I'm not sure if that's just selection bias, since we get to choose over a wider range of time and subject matter that way, or if journal editors were a bit looser about what they would allow back then. The original Watson and Crick DNA paper, for example, would surely never be written up that way today).

Update: here's a Curious Wavefunction post on this from a couple of years ago, with some of his own nominations.

Comments (43) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 21, 2014

Throwing Out the Files

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since I'm in the process of moving my office, I've been taking time to do something that's needed to be done for quite a while: cleaning out my files. Somewhere around 2007 or so, I made the switchover to keeping PDFs as my primary filing system, with paper copies when needed. There was a transitional period, which I ended up splicing together by checking through my recent printed copies and backfilling those into my digital archive, but after that, it was all digital. (For the record, I'm still using Zotero for that purpose, although there are several equally valid alternatives, both commercial and freeware).

But I still had a pretty massive filing cabinet full of stuff, and I let that remain undisturbed, even though I knew some of it was surely junk. Only when I started digging into it did I realize just how much of it was little more than that. I'd estimate that I've thrown at least 80% of my files into the recycling bin, an act that would have made me uneasy only a few years ago, and horrified me in, say, 2004. It was easier than I thought, though.

That's because the folders easily fell into several broad categories. In the medical/biological sections of the cabinet, there were "Topics I'm Unlikely to Revisit - And When I Do, It Won't Be With These References". Those went right into the recycling bin. And there were "Topics I May Well Revisit, But When I Do, It Won't Be With These References". Those, after a glance through their contents, went into the bin as well. These were folders on (for example) disease areas that I've worked on in the past, and might conceivably work on again, but a folder full of ten-year-old biomedical articles is not that useful compared to the space it takes up and the trouble it takes to move it. And if that sounds borderline to you, how about the ones that hadn't been updated since the late 1990s? Junk. Nothing in the literature goes out of date faster than a state-of-current-disease-research article.

Moving to the chemistry folders, I was quickly surprised at how many of those I was throwing away as well. The great majority of the printed papers I kept were chemistry ones, but the great majority of what I started out with went into the recycling bin anyway. Digging through them was, in many cases, a reminder of what keeping up with the literature used to be like, back in the day. It was a time when if you found a useful-looking paper, you copied it out and put it in your files, because there was no telling when or if you'd be able to find it again. If you were one of the supremely organized ones, you drew a key reaction or two on an index card and filed that according to some system of your own devising - that's before my time, but I saw people doing that back when I was a grad student. The same sort of pack-ratting persisted well into the 1990s, though, but eroded in the face of better access to Chemical Abstracts (and the rise of competing databases). Finding that reaction, or others like it, or even better references than the ones you knew about, became less and less of a big deal.

So in my files, over in the section for "Synthesis of Amines", there was a folder on the opening of epoxides by amines. And in it were several papers I'd copied in the late 1980s. And some printed-out hits from SciFinder searches in about 1993. And a couple of reactions that I'd seen at conferences, and a paper from 1997 showing how you could change the site of ring opening, sometimes, with some systems. Into the bin it went, despite the feeling (not an inaccurate one) that I was throwing away work that I'd put into assembling all that. But if I find myself wanting to run such a reaction, I can probably set something up that'll work fairly well, and if it doesn't, I can probably find a review article (or two) where someone else has assembled the previous literature.

One of the biggest problems with my chemistry files, I realized, was the difficulty of searching them. I'd gotten used to the world of SciFinder and Reaxsys and Google and PubMed, where information can be called up any way you like. File folders, though, do not speak of their contents. Unless you have the main points of that content committed to memory, you have to open them up and flip through them, hoping for something relevant to pop up. I can well remember doing that in the early 1990s with some of these very folders ("Hmm, let's see what methods I have for such-and-such"), but that style of searching disappeared many years ago. You can now see what methods everyone has, and quickly find out what's been added to the pile since the last time you looked. Younger researchers who've grown up in that world may find it odd that I'm pointing out that water is wet, but my earliest file-cabinet folders were started in another time. File folders are based on tagging (and in its purest form, a physical label), and I agree with people who say that the ability to search is more important and useful than the ability to tag.

So, what did I keep? Folders on specialized topics that I recalled were very difficult to assemble, in a few cases. Papers that I know that I've referred to several times over the years. Papers that refer directly to things that I'm currently working on. Some stuff that's so old that it falls under the category of memorabilia. And finally, papers on more current topics that I want to make sure that I also have in digital form, but didn't have time to check just now. But that three-inch-thick collection of nuclear receptor papers from 2000-2002? The papers on iron dienyl reagents that I copied off during a look at that chemistry in 1991, and never had a need to refer to after about ten days? A folder of reductive amination conditions from the late 1980s? Into the big blue bin with all of it.

Comments (23) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

January 20, 2014

A Long Fight Over Allegations of Fraud

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a long article from the Raleigh News and Observer (part one and part two) on the Eaton/Feldheim/Franzen dispute in nanoparticles, which some readers may already be familiar with (I haven't covered it on the blog myself). The articles are clearly driven by Franzen's continued belief that research fraud has been committed, and the paper makes the most of it.

The original 2004 publication in Science claimed that RNA solutions could influence the crystal form of palladium nanoparticles, which opened up the possibility of applying the tools of molecular biology to catalysts and other inorganic chemistry applications. Two more papers in JACS extended this to platinum and looked at in vitro evolutionary experiments. But even by 2005, Franzen's lab (who had been asked to join the collaboration between Eaton and Feldheim, who were now at Colorado and a startup company) was generating disturbing data: the original hexagonal crystals (a very strange and interesting form for palladium) weren't pure palladium at all - on an elemental basis, they were mostly carbon. (Later work showed that they were unstable crystals of (roughly) Pd(dba)3, with solvated THF. And they were produced just as well in the negative control experiments, with no RNA added at all.

N. C. State investigated the matter, and the committee agreed that the results were spurious. But they found Feldheim guilty of sloppy work, rather than fraud, saying he should have checked things out more thoroughly. Franzen continued to feel as if justice hadn't been done, though:

In fall 2009, he spent $1,334 of his own money to hire Mike Tadych, a Raleigh lawyer who specializes in public records law and who has represented The News & Observer. In 2010, the university relented and allowed Franzen into the room where the investigation records were locked away.

Franzen found the lab notebooks, which track experiments and results. As he turned the pages, he recognized that Gugliotti kept a thorough and well-organized record.

“I found an open-and-shut case of research fraud,” Franzen said.

The aqueous solution mentioned in the Science article? The experiments routinely used 50 percent solvent. The experiments only produced the hexagonal crystals when there was a high level of solvent, typically 50 percent or more. It was the solvent creating the hexagonal crystals, not the RNA.

On Page 43 of notebook 3, Franzen found what he called a “smoking gun.”

(Graduate student Lina) Gugliotti had pasted four images of hexagonal crystals, ragged around the edges. The particles were degrading at room temperature. The same degradation was present in other samples, she noted.

The Science paper claimed the RNA-templated crystals were formed in aqueous solution with 5% THF and were stable. NC State apparently offered to revoke Gugliotti's doctorate (and another from the group), but the article says that the chemistry faculty objected, saying that the professors involved should be penalized, not the students. The university isn't commenting, saying that an investigation by the NSF is still ongoing, but Franzen points out that it's been going on for five years now, a delay that has probably set a record. He's published several papers characterizing the palladium "nanocrystals", though, including this recent one with one of Eaton and Feldheim's former collaborators and co-authors. And there the matter stands.

It's interesting that Franzen pursued this all the way to the newspaper (known when I Iived in North Carolina by its traditional nickname of the Nuisance and Disturber). He's clearly upset at having joined what looked like an important and fruitful avenue of research, only to find out - rather quickly - that it was based on sloppy, poorly-characterized results. And I think what really has him furious is that the originators of the idea (Feldheim and Eaton) have tried, all these years, to carry on as if nothing was wrong.

I think, though, that Franzen is having his revenge whether he realizes it or not. It's coming up on ten years now since the original RNA nanocrystal paper. If this work were going to lead somewhere, you'd think that it would have led somewhere by now. But it doesn't seem to be. The whole point of the molecular-biology-meets-materials-science aspect of this idea was that it would allow a wide variety of new materials to be made quickly, and from the looks of things, that just hasn't happened. I'll bet that if you went back and looked up the 2005 grant application for the Keck foundation that Eaton, Feldheim (and at the time, Franzen) wrote up, it would read like an alternate-history science fiction story by now.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | Press Coverage | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

January 16, 2014

Should Drug Industry Research All Get Rejected For Publication?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

If you work in the drug industry, and for some reason you feel that your blood pressure isn't quite high enough today, a look at this debate at the British Medical Journal should fix that up for you. "Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?" is the title - there, doesn't that constrict your blood vessels already?

Taking the "Yes, they should" side are Richard Smith (former editor of the journal, now with a British organization called "Patients Know Best", and Peter C. Gøtzsche of the Nordic Cochrane Center. Here's their opening statement, and Gøtzsche's recent opinion piece in the same journal is a good harbinger, as it turns out:

The BMJ and its sibling journals have stopped publishing research funded by the tobacco industry for two main reasons: the research is corrupted and the companies publish their research to advance their commercial aims, oblivious of the harm they do. But these arguments apply even more strongly to research funded by the drug industry, and we suggest there is a better way to communicate the results of trials that would be safer for patients.

Prescribed drugs are the third leading cause of death, partly because of flaws in the evidence published in journals. We have long known that clinical trials funded by the drug industry are much more likely than publicly funded trials to produce results favourable to the company. The reason is obvious. The difference between an honest and a less than honest data analysis can be worth billions of euros, and the fraudulent trials of some cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors for arthritis and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression are good examples

They're absolutely right about the financial motivations, and a first-rate moral hazard it is, too. But the comparison with the tobacco companies is a real pencil-snapper (as they no doubt intended it to be). They go on about prescription drugs being the "third largest cause of death", about "drug industry crimes", and so on. To be fair, and first let me brush these pencil fragments off my desk, the pharmaceutical companies have laid themselves wide open to these sorts of attacks, painting huge fluorescent bulls-eye targets on themselves again and again. But still.

This piece casually mentions that "olanzapine (Zyprexa), has probably caused 200 000 deaths", footnoting a book by one of the two authors. I seem to have missed that. Many antipsychotic drugs are associated with QT prolongation, which can lead to fatal heart arrythmias, but the worst of them have long been taken out of use. The FDA is investigating two deaths following injection of long-acting olanzapine, not two hundred thousand. Olanzapine has plenty of side effects, though, including weight gain (which can exacerbate Type II diabetes), and it has a warning label in the US about giving it to elderly patients under any conditions. But two hundred thousand deaths? I can't find any support for any such figure; it appears in Gøtzsche's book and apparently nowhere else, so citing it in this article as if it were a well-established fact is a nice move.

Taking the "No" side is Trish Groves of the BMJ itself. She rejects the analogy with the tobacco industry - as she should, because it's offensive and ridiculous. She goes on to detail the problems with industry-reported results and what the journal is doing about them. As opposed to the "Yes" side, it's a pretty reasonable piece. One of the things she mentions is that investigator-led trials have their own sources of bias. Very few people organizing an effort the size of a useful clinical trial will be disinterested in its results, unfortunately.

How much can we trust the evidence base for drugs in current use? It’s hard to tell, given the woeful legacy of widespread non-registration, non-publication, and selective reporting of clinical trials. Much of this reporting bias also applies to investigator led trials, and the many steps now being taken to mandate prospective trial registration, ensure reporting of all results, and access patient level data on interventions’ benefits and harms, as called for by the AllTrials campaign, must apply to them as much as to industry led trials. Moreover, new rules on transparency need to be applied retrospectively: laudable plans to provide access to data on new drugs aren’t enough.

That’s why the BMJ is keen to publish papers from the RIAT (Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials) initiative, through which academics who find previously unreported trials can write them up and publish them if the original investigators decline to do so. We also welcome “negative” trials that find no evidence of benefit, as long as their research questions are important and their methods robust, and we’re particularly interested in publishing trials of comparative effectiveness. Both these types of study can be much more useful to clinical practice than the placebo controlled trials that regulators demand. . .

It should be no great task to guess which side of this debate I favor - after all, I'm one of those evil drug company scientists who mow down the customers by the hundreds of thousands. I do wish that Groves' response had strayed a bit from the topic at hand and addressed those accusations of mass murder (that's what they are). I realize that it must be hard to tell a former editor to tone things down and go back for a rewrite. But still.

Comments (46) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Clinical Trials | The Scientific Literature | Why Everyone Loves Us

January 7, 2014

How Much Is Wrong?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's another take, from Jeff Leek at Simply Statistics, on the "How much published research is false?" topic. This one is (deliberately) trying to cut down on the alarm bells and flashing red lights.

Note that the author is a statistician, and the the arguments made are from that perspective. For example, the Amgen paper on problems with reproducibility of drug target papers is quickly dismissed with the phrase "This is not a scientific paper" (because it has no data), and the locus classicus of the false-research-results topic, the Ioannidis paper in PLoS Medicine, is seen off with the comment that "The paper contains no real data, it is purely based on conjecture and simulation."

I'll agree that we don't need to start assuming that everything is junk, as far as the eye can see. But I'm not as sanguine as Leek is, I think. Semi-anecdotal reports like the Amgen paper, the Bayer/Schering paper, and even scuttlebutt from Bruce Booth and the like are not statistically vetted scientific reports, true. But the way that they're all pointing in the same direction is suggestive. And it's worth keeping in mind that all of these parties have an interest in the answer being the opposite of what they're finding - we'd all like for the literature reports of great new targets and breakthroughs to be true.

The one report where Leek is glad about the mathematical underpinnings is the Many Labs project. But there's something about that that bothers me. The Many Labs people were trying to replicate results in experimental psychology, and while there's probably some relevance to the replications problems in biology and chemistry, there are big differences, too. I worry that everything is getting lumped together as Science, and if this part of Science is holding up, then those worries that people in other parts of Science have are probably ill-founded (after all, they don't have any real numbers, right?)

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 2, 2014

It Just So Happens That I Have A Conference Right Here

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a good addition to the "bogus conferences" file. The folks at Retraction Watch have the story of Navin Kabra, an Indian engineer who's blowing the whistle on a racket peculiar to that country.

There are apparently many universities in India that have a requirement that everyone attaining a certain degree has to have their work accepted at an "international conference". So. . .a number of "international conference" organizers have stepped up to fill that market niche, with hefty registration fees and talk of rigorous peer review and high standards. They do nothing of the kind, of course. People pay their cash, pay their own way to the conference, and get to present to a scattered audience of other people who've done the same thing. No one else shows up - why would anyone?

So Kabra sent them a manuscript full of gibberish and stretches of dialog from "My Cousin Vinny", and (you guessed it), the thing passed the brutal review process as soon as the cash appeared. After revealing his hoax, the paper seems to have been taken down from the conference web site, but up until then, it was available for interested scholars, or people interested in Joe Pesci and/or Marisa Tomei. As long as the universities pretend that everyone coming through their programs has done work that's fit to present, there will be people there who will pretend to hold conferences for them. The real losers are the students, many of whom apparently think that these are real meetings. How do you recognize the real thing if all you've ever been exposed to are the scams?

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

December 16, 2013

Top Chemical Publications of 2013

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

From Organic Solution, here's a list of the top chemical papers of 2013. If I were to make my own list, some of the papers on this one would certainly overlap. Other people will have different ones, though, and I'd be glad to link to them as well - I'll update this post with any suggestions that come in for other selections.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 11, 2013

Down With the Luxury Journals?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Nobel laureate Randy Schekman has stirred up a lot of controversy with his public declaration that he will send no more manuscripts to Nature, Science, Cell and such "luxury journals".

. . .The prevailing structures of personal reputation and career advancement mean the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best. Those of us who follow these incentives are being entirely rational – I have followed them myself – but we do not always best serve our profession's interests, let alone those of humanity and society.

We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science.

These luxury journals are supposed to be the epitome of quality, publishing only the best research. Because funding and appointment panels often use place of publication as a proxy for quality of science, appearing in these titles often leads to grants and professorships. But the big journals' reputations are only partly warranted. While they publish many outstanding papers, they do not publish only outstanding papers. Neither are they the only publishers of outstanding research.

These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor". . .

The editorial staffs at these journals have been quick to point out that this is not necessarily a disinterested move, since Schekman is editor of eLife, a high-end open access journal. And no doubt some colleagues thought to themselves that it's much easier to abjure publication in the big journals after you've won your Nobel prize.

But there's a flip side to both those arguments. Scheckman is indeed editor of eLife, but that also means that he's willing to put his time and effort where his mouth is when he says that the current top-tier journals are a problem. And he's also willing to use his Nobelist profile in the service of that idea - many of the people complaining about how Scheckman is already famous would have produced no headlines at all had they announced that they would no longer publish in Nature. I seem to have taken that vow myself, at least so far in my career, without even realizing it.

Here's the response from Phillip Campbell at Nature Publishing Group. He says that he doesn't think it's helpful to mix the idea of open access with selectivity in publication, since open access is more of a business model. I see his point - there are selective open-access journals (like eLife), and there are nonselective ones, all the way down to the outright frauds. The same applies to the traditional journals, although the opportunities for fraud are not as lucrative. Campbell also decries the emphasis on impact factors, although the same objections can be made as with Scheckman, that it's easy for the editor of a high-impact-factor journal to play them down.

But impact factors really are pernicious. There will always be more- and less-presigious places to publish your research - any attempt to legislate otherwise is on a par with the creation of the New Soviet Man. But the advent of the impact factor gives everyone a lazy way to make the worst of it. It's especially tempting for people who don't even understand what someone else's research means, or might mean, but who have to judge them anyway. Why bother with the technical details? You have everything you need, to three idiotic decimal places, right there.

That actually sums up what I think about impact factors, although I've never put it quite so succinctly before: they're a moral hazard.

Update: more from Retraction Watch on the subject.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 6, 2013

Shop Up Some Gels For the Paper

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There have been many accusations over the years of people duplicating and fudging gels in biology papers. The site made quite an impression with some of these, and there are others. But as in so many other fields, manual labor is giving way to software and automation.

Nature News has the story of an Italian company that has come up with an automated way of searching images in scientific papers for duplication. The first scalp has already been claimed, but how bad is the problem?

Now midway through the analysis, he estimates that around one-quarter of the thousands of papers featuring gels that he has analysed so far potentially breached widely accepted guidelines on reproducing gel images. And around 10% seem to include very obvious breaches, such as cutting and pasting of gel bands. Some journals were more affected than others, he says. Those with a high impact factor tended to be slightly less affected. He plans to publish his results.

I'll be happy to see the paper, and glad to see this sort of technique applied more broadly. I wonder if it can be adapted to published NMR spectra?

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

December 3, 2013

What You Can Publish After a Shamectomy

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The sleazy scientific publishing racket continues to plumb new depths in its well-provisioned submarine. Now comes word of "Stringer Open" - nope, not Springer Open, that one's a real publisher of real journals. This outfit is Stringer, which is a bit like finding a list of journals published by the American Comical Society. The ScholarlyOA blog noticed that the same person appears on multiple editorial boards across their various journals. When contacted, she turned out to be a secretary who's never heard of "Stringer". Class all the way. The journals themselves will be populated by the work of dupes and/or con artists - maybe some of those Chinese papers-for-rent can be stuffed in there to make a real lasagna of larceny out of the whole effort.

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

December 2, 2013

Authorship For Sale. Papers For Sale. Everything For Sale.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Academic publishing fraud in China has come up here before, but Science has an in-depth look at the problem. And a big problem it is:

"There are some authors who don't have much use for their papers after they're published, and they can be transferred to you," a sales agent for a company called Wanfang Huizhi told a Science reporter posing as a scientist. Wanfang Huizhi, the agent explained, acts as an intermediary between researchers with forthcoming papers in good journals and scientists needing to snag publications. The company would sell the title of co–first author on the cancer paper for 90,000 yuan ($14,800). Adding two names—co–first author and co–corresponding author—would run $26,300, with a deposit due upon acceptance and the rest on publication. A purported sales document from Wanfang Huizhi obtained by Science touts the convenience of this kind of arrangement: "You only need to pay attention to your academic research. The heavy labor can be left to us. Our service can help you make progress in your academic path!"

For anyone who cares about science and research, this is revolting. If you care a lot more about climbing that slippery ladder up to a lucrative position, though, it might be just the thing, right? There are all sorts of people ready to help you realize your dreams, too:

The options include not just paying for an author's slot on a paper written by other scientists but also self-plagiarizing by translating a paper already published in Chinese and resubmitting it in English; hiring a ghostwriter to compose a paper from faked or independently gathered data; or simply buying a paper from an online catalog of manuscripts—often with a guarantee of publication.

Offering these services are brokers who hawk titles and SCI paper abstracts from their perches in China; individuals such as a Chinese graduate student who keeps a blog listing unpublished papers for sale; fly-by-night operations that advertise online; and established companies like Wanfang Huizhi that also offer an array of above-board services, such as arranging conferences and producing tailor-made coins and commemorative stamps. Agencies boast at conferences that they can write papers for scientists who lack data. They cold-call journal editors. They troll for customers in chat programs. . .

The journal contacted 27 agencies in China, with reporters posing as graduate students or other scientists, and asked about paying to get on a list of authors or paying to have a paper written up from scratch. 22 of them were ready to help with either or both. Many of these were to be placed in Chinese-language journals, but for a higher fee you could get into more international titles as well. Because of Chinese institutional insistence on high-impact-factor journal publications, people who can deliver that kind of publication can charge as much as a young professor's salary. (Since some institutions turn around and pay a bonus for such publications, though, it can still be feasible).

Some agencies claim they not only prepare and submit papers for a client: They furnish the data as well. "IT'S UNBELIEVABLE: YOU CAN PUBLISH SCI PAPERS WITHOUT DOING EXPERIMENTS," boasts a flashing banner on Sciedit's website.

One timesaver: a ready stock of abstracts at hand for clients who need to get published fast. Jiecheng Editing and Translation entices clients on its website with titles of papers that only lack authors. An agency representative told an undercover Science reporter that the company buys data from a national laboratory in Hunan province.

The article goes on to show that there are many Chinese scientists that are trying to do something about all this. I hope that they succeed, but it's going to take a lot of work to realign the incentives. Unless this happens, though, the Chinese-language scientific literature risks finding itself devolving into a bad joke, and papers from Chinese institutions risk having to go through extra levels of scrutiny when submitted abroad.

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

November 19, 2013

More on the Open Access Sting Article

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wrote here about the recent article by John Bohannon in Science, where he submitted a clearly substandard article to a long list of open-access publishers. (The results reflected poorly on many of them). Now here's a follow-up interview with Bohannon at The Scholarly Kitchen, where he addresses many of the critiques of the piece. Well worth a read if this issue interests you.

Q: What has been the response of editors and publishers? Have any journals ceased publication? Have any editors/editorial board members resigned in protest? Do any of them blame you, personally, for the outcomes? Have any threats (legal or otherwise) been made towards you or Science Magazine as a result of the exposé?

A couple of weeks before the story was published, I contacted editors and publishers specifically named in the story. Their responses are printed in the article, ranging from falling on their own sword and accepting responsibility to blaming the publishers and claiming they were not involved with the journal. But since the story was published, editors and publishers have largely fallen silent.

One exception is an editor based in the Middle East who says that the sting has cost him his job. It pains me to hear that. But then again, he clearly wasn’t doing his job.

As far as I can tell, it has been business as usual for the 157 publishers that got stung. I know of only one fully confirmed closure of a journal (as reported in Retraction Watch). There have been statements by publishers that they intend to close a journal, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

Of course, closing a single journal is nothing but a pinprick for many of the publishers that accepted the fake paper. Most publish dozens–some, hundreds–of titles.

I was bracing myself for lawsuits and PR blitzes from the publishers and editors that got stung. Ironically, the attacks came instead from advocates of the open access movement.

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 12, 2013

It Doesn't Repeat? Who's Interested?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Nature Biotechnology is making it known that they're open to publishing studies with negative results. The occasion is their publication of this paper, which is an attempt to replicate the results of this work, published last year in Cell Research. The original paper, from Chen-Yu Zhang of Nanjing University, reported that micro-RNAs (miRNAs) from ingested plants could be taken up into the circulation of rodents, and (more specifically) that miRNA168a from rice could actually go on to modulate gene expression in the animals themselves. This was a very interesting (and controversial) result, with a lot of implications for human nutrition and for the use of transgenic crops, and it got a lot of press at the time.

But other researchers in the field were not buying these results, and this new paper (from miRagen Therapeutics and Monsanto) reports that they cannot replicated the Nanjing work at all. Here's their rationale for doing the repeat:

The naturally occurring RNA interference (RNAi) response has been extensively reported after feeding double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) in some invertebrates, such as the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans and some agricultural pests (e.g., corn rootworm and cotton bollworm). Yet, despite responsiveness to ingested dsRNA, a recent survey revealed substantial variation in sensitivity to dsRNA in other Caenorhabditis nematodes and other invertebrate species. In addition, despite major efforts in academic and pharmaceutical laboratories to activate the RNA silencing pathway in response to ingested RNA, the phenomenon had not been reported in mammals until a recent publication by Zhang et al. in Cell Research. This report described the uptake of plant-derived microRNAs (miRNA) into the serum, liver and a few other tissues in mice following consumption of rice, as well as apparent gene regulatory activity in the liver. The observation provided a potentially groundbreaking new possibility that RNA-based therapies could be delivered to mammals through oral administration and at the same time opened a discussion on the evolutionary impact of environmental dietary nucleic acid effects across broad phylogenies. A recently reported survey of a large number of animal small RNA datasets from public sources has not revealed evidence for any major plant-derived miRNA accumulation in animal samples. Given the number of questions evoked by these analyses, the limited success with oral RNA delivery for pharmaceutical development, the history of safe consumption for dietary small RNAs and lack of evidence for uptake of plant-derived dietary small RNAs, we felt further evaluation of miRNA uptake and the potential for cross-kingdom gene regulation in animals was warranted to assess the prevalence, impact and robustness of the phenomenon.

They believe that the expression changes that the original team noted in their rodents were due to the dietary changes, not to the presence of rice miRNAs, which they say that they cannot detect. Now, at this point, I'm going to exit the particulars of this debate. I can imagine that there will be a lot of hand-waving and finger-pointing, not least because these latest results come partly from Monsanto. You have only to mention that company's name to an anti-GMO activist, in my experience, to induce a shouting fit, and it's a real puzzle why saying "DeKalb" or "Pioneer Hi-Bred" doesn't do the same. But it's Monsanto who take the heat. Still, here we have a scientific challenge, which can presumably be answered by scientific means: does rice miRNA get into the circulation and have an effect, or not?

What I wanted to highlight, though, is another question that might have occurred to anyone reading the above. Why isn't this new paper in Cell Research, if they published the original one? Well, the authors apparently tried them, only to find their work rejected because (as they were told) "it is a bit hard to publish a paper of which the results are largely negative". That is a silly response, verging on the stupid. The essence of science is reproducibility, and if some potentially important result can't be replicated, then people need to know about it. The original paper had very big implications, and so does this one.

Note that although Cell Research is published out of Shanghai, it's part of the Nature group of journals. If two titles under the same publisher can't work something like this out, what hope is there for the rest of the literature? Congratulations to Nature Biotechnology, though, for being willing to publish, and for explicitly stating that they are open to replication studies of important work. Someone should be.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

November 11, 2013

The Past Twenty Years of Drug Development, Via the Literature

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a new paper in PlOSOne on drug development over the past 20 years. The authors are using a large database of patents and open literature publications, and trying to draw connections between those two, and between individual drug targets and the number of compounds that have been disclosed against them. Their explanation of patents and publications is a good one:

. . .We have been unable to find any formal description of the information flow between these two document types but it can be briefly described as follows. Drug discovery project teams typically apply for patents to claim and protect the chemical space around their lead series from which clinical development candidates may be chosen. This sets the minimum time between the generation of data and its disclosure to 18 months. In practice, this is usually extended, not only by the time necessary for collating the data and drafting the application but also where strategic choices may be made to file later in the development cycle to maximise the patent term. It is also common to file separate applications for each distinct chemical series the team is progressing.

While some drug discovery operations may eschew non-patent disclosure entirely, it is nevertheless common practice (and has business advantages) for project teams to submit papers to journals that include some of the same structures and data from their patents. While the criteria for inventorship are different than for authorship, there are typically team members in-common between the two types of attribution. Journal publications may or may not identify the lead compound by linking the structure to a code name, depending on how far this may have progressed as a clinical candidate.

The time lag can vary between submitting manuscripts immediately after filing, waiting until the application has published, deferring publication until a project has been discontinued, or the code name may never be publically resolvable to a structure. A recent comparison showed that 6% of compound structures exemplified in patents were also published in journal articles. While the patterns described above will be typical for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the situation in the academic sector differs in a number of respects. Universities and research institutions are publishing increasing numbers of patents for bioactive compounds but their embargo times for publication and/or upload of screening results to open repositories, such as PubChem BioAssay, are generally shorter.

There are also a couple of important factors to keep in mind during the rest of the analysis. The authors point out that their database includes a substantial number of "compounds" which are not small, drug-like molecules (these are antibodies, proteins, large natural products, and so on). (In total, from 1991 to 2010 they have about one million compounds from journal articles and nearly three million from patents). And on the "target" side of the database, there are a significant number of counterscreens included which are not drug targets as such, so it might be better to call the whole thing a compound-to-protein mapping exercise. That said, what did they find?
Here's the chart of compounds/target, by year. The peak and decline around 2005 is quite noticeable, and is corroborated by a search through the PCT patent database, which shows a plateau in pharmaceutical patents around this time (which has continued until now, by the way).

Looking at the target side of things, with those warnings above kept in mind, shows a different picture. The journal-publication side of things really has shown an increase over the last ten years, with an apparent inflection point in the early 2000s. What happened? I'd be very surprised if the answer didn't turn out to be genomics. If you want to see the most proximal effect of the human genomics frenzy from around that time, there you have it in the way that curve bends around 2001. Year-on-year, though (see the full paper for that chart), the targets mentioned in journal publications seem to have peaked in 2008 or so, and have either plateaued or actually started to come back down since then. Update: Fixed the second chart, which had been a duplicate of the first).
The authors go on to track a number of individual targets by their mentions in patents and journals, and you can certainly see a lot of rise-and-fall stories over the last 20 years. Those actual years should not be over-interpreted, though, because of the delays (mentioned above) in patenting, and the even longer delays, in some cases, for journal publication from inside pharma organizations.

So what's going on with the apparent decline in output? The authors have some ideas, as do (I'm sure) readers of this site. Some of those ideas probably overlap pretty well:

While consideration of all possible causative factors is outside the scope of this work it could be speculated that the dominant causal effect on global output is mergers and acquisition activity (M&A) among pharmaceutical companies. The consequences of this include target portfolio consolidations and the combining of screening collections. This also reduces the number of large units competing in the production of medicinal chemistry IP. A second related factor is less scientists engaged in generating output. Support for the former is provided by the deduction that NME output is directly related to the number of companies and for the latter, a report that US pharmaceutical companies are estimated to have lost 300,000 jobs since 2000. There are other plausible contributory factors where finding corroborative data is difficult but nonetheless deserve comment. Firstly, patent filing and maintenance costs will have risen at approximately the same rate as compound numbers. Therefore part of the decrease could simply be due to companies, quasi-synchronously, reducing their applications to control costs. While this happened for novel sequence filings over the period of 1995–2000, we are neither aware any of data source against which this hypothesis could be explicitly tested for chemical patenting nor any reports that might support it. Similarly, it is difficult to test the hypothesis of resource switching from “R” to “D” as a response to declining NCE approvals. Our data certainly infer the shrinking of “R” but there are no obvious metrics delineating a concomitant expansion of “D”. A third possible factor, a shift in the small-molecule:biologicals ratio in favour of the latter is supported by declared development portfolio changes in recent years but, here again, proving a causative coupling is difficult.

Causality is a real problem in big retrospectives like this. The authors, as you see, are appropriately cautious. (They also mention, as a good example, that a decline in compounds aimed at a particular target can be a signal of both success and of failure). But I'm glad that they've made the effort here. It looks like they're now analyzing the characteristics of the reported compounds with time and by target, and I look forward to seeing the results of that work.

Update: here's a lead author of the paper with more in a blog post.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Development | Drug Industry History | Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature

October 22, 2013

ACSNano on Problematic Papers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The editorial board at ACSNano has come out with a statement on how they'd like problematic papers to be handled. This, the article most pointedly does not say, is surely a response to the controversy over a recent (ridiculously Photoshopped) paper that appeared in the journal. That one didn't make anyone look good, and I can see why the editors felt that they had to make an effort.

The piece is superficially reasonable. They're asking that if someone sees a paper with questionable content, that they should contact the journal first, which I think is good practice in any case. But then we have this:

In the end, a decision will be made, ranging from notification that no cause was found to support the accusations made, corrections to a published article, retraction of the article, and/or to notifying the authors’ institutions of such actions. At ACS Nano, we take scientific fraud seriously and, as needed, retract articles and place sanctions on authors for set numbers of years, including bans on further submissions. The difference between this formalized accusation investigation and reports in blogs or on Twitter is that, during the investigation, the authors of the article under dispute have a fair chance to explain, and the decisions are made by known experts in the field. After we have made our decision, all are welcome to comment on it in any blog, even if they have different opinions; this is their privilege. We strongly suggest that such comments be made without the cloak of anonymity, using real names and affiliations, so that direct and open discussion of the work can be understood by others.

While we appreciate readers being critical and thus helping to weed out incorrect or fraudulent manuscripts, we still should not consider each publication from a competitor as being potentially wrong. A climate of mistrust will not help anyone and will only hamper honest scientists, which are the great majority of our community. Researchers make their reputations by publishing excellent data, not by being whistleblowers with mixed records of accuracy. It is easy to criticize the work of others, but it is substantially harder to achieve something by oneself. In other words, be critical, but never forget to be fair. One can be competitive, but still friends with colleagues, who naturally are also in some ways competitors. We are all humans, and we should never forget the human touches in our work.

So no one is supposed to comment until the editors have made a decision, no matter how long that might take? Desirable or not, I don't see that happening. Look, a scientific paper, once published out on the flippin' internet, is open to comment from whoever wishes to read it. That's what it's there for, to be made use of as its readers find appropriate. I tend to think that a more wide-open discussion of the merits of articles (or their lack of same) is actually good for the field. It should spur people on to write better papers, and put a bit more fear into those who might be tempted to fake things up.

I realize that people are afraid of libel, of character assassination, and so on. But arguing over the details of scientific publications does not lend itself to those activities very easily, although it's certainly true that there are plenty of folks out there who would not above that sort of thing if they thought they could get away with it. But these misdeeds are rather transparent, for the most part, and can just end up making the accusers themselves look foolish. They get the same kind of scrutiny as everyone else. (And besides, don't the sorts of people who really get into that stuff have a significant overlap with the sorts who would fake their papers?) I don't see this as mistrust - I see it as science. If your results are firm, they should be able to stand up to some shaking. If they can't, well, everyone should know about it. If you accuse someone mistakenly, well, you yourself should be ready to take the consequences of that, too. On the other hand, assuming (as the ACSNano piece seems to assume) that anyone with complaints about a paper must be a disgruntled competitor seems be a rather mistrustful way to look at things, too.

That second paragaph above, with its "play nice" advice, should be read while glancing at the "nanorod" photos from that recent paper. Try to reconcile the high-minded tone with what you see, and see if you have any better luck than I did.

Comments (62) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

October 17, 2013

The Reproducibility Initiative is Open

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Looks like the Reproducibility Initiative might be getting off the ground. This press release from the Center for Open Science says that they have a $1.3 million grant to start validating high-profile results in the oncology research literature. This will be done through the Science Exchange site, with results freely available to all comers.

I'm happy to see something like this coming together, but I don't know how far that money's going to go. The press release talks about 50 key papers that they'd like to reproduce, and I don't see how 1.3 million dollars will be enough to get through that list. (Is there a list of the papers anywhere? I can't find it). Some of the key tests will be relatively quick and cheap, but not all of them. But I agree with the COS that one of the important things here is to get this idea out into the real world, to get people used to it, and to establish it as useful. If they pick their targets carefully, the money should allow that to happen.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Cancer | The Scientific Literature

October 16, 2013

Holding Back Experimental Details, With Reason

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a lot of worry these days about the reproducibility of scientific papers (a topic that's come up here many times). And there's reason to believe that the sharing of data, protocols, and materials is not going so well, either.

. . . authors seem less willing to share these additional details about their study protocols than they have been in the past, according to a survey of 389 authors who published studies in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The findings, presented on 9 September at the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Chicago, found that over the five years studied the percentage saying they would be willing to do so has dropped from almost 80% to only 60%.

A lack of incentives for sharing might be partly to blame. “There's no recognition, no promotion and no profit for scientists who share more information,” says Steven Goodman, a clinical research expert at Stanford University School of Medicine in California, who was part of the team that evaluated the survey results.

But there are two new papers out that deliberately does not share all the details, and it's not hard to see why. This NPR report has the background, but the abstract from the first paper will be enough for anyone in the field:

Clostridium botulinum strain IBCA10-7060, isolated from a patient with infant botulism, produced botulinum neurotoxin type B (BoNT/B) and another BoNT that, by use of the standard mouse bioassay, could not be neutralized by any of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–provided monovalent polyclonal botulinum antitoxins raised against BoNT types A–G.

That's not good. Until an antitoxin is available, the sequence of this new neurotoxin will not be published, although the fact of its existence is certainly worth knowing. The Journal of Infectious Diseases has two editorial articles on the issues that this work raises:

(The) identification of a novel, eighth botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) from a patient with botulism expands our understanding of Clostridium botulinum and BoNT diversity, C. botulinum evolution, and the pathogenesis of botulism, but it also reveals a significant public health vulnerability. This new toxin, BoNT/H, cannot be neutralized by any of the currently available antibotulinum antisera, which means that we have no effective treatment for this form of botulism. Until anti-BoNT/H antitoxin can be created, shown to be effective, and deployed, both the strain itself and the sequence of this toxin (with which recombinant protein can be easily made) pose serious risks to public health because of the unusually severe, widespread harm that could result from misuse of either [3]. Thus, the dilemma faced by these authors, and by society, revolves around the question, should all of the information from this and similar studies be fully disseminated, motivated by the desire to realize all possible benefits from the discovery, or should dissemination of some or all of the information be restricted, with the goal of diminishing the probability of misuse?

I think they've made the right call here. (Last year's disputes about publishing work on a new strain of influenza are in just the same category.) Those studying botulin toxins need to know about this discovery, but given the molecular biology tools available to people, publishing the sequence (or making samples of the organism available) would be asking for potentially major trouble. This, unfortunately, seems to me to be an accurate reading of the world that we find ourselves in. There is a point where the value of having the knowledge out there is outweighed by the danger of. . .having the knowledge out there. This is going to be a case-by-case thing, but we should all be ready for some things to land on this side of the line.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

October 4, 2013

An Open Access Trash Heap

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Science magazine and writer John Bohannon have done us all a favor. There's a long article out in the latest issue that details how he wrote up a terrible, ridiculous scientific manuscript, attached a made-up name to it under the aegis of a nonexistent institution, and sent this farrago off to over three hundred open-access journals. The result?

On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.

In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

Well, sure, you're saying. Given the sorts of lowlife publishers out there, of course they took it, as long as the check cleared. But it's even worse than it appears:

Acceptance was the norm, not the exception. The paper was accepted by journals hosted by industry titans Sage and Elsevier. The paper was accepted by journals published by prestigious academic institutions such as Kobe University in Japan. It was accepted by scholarly society journals. It was even accepted by journals for which the paper's topic was utterly inappropriate, such as the Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction.

Here's all the documentation, and it documents a sorry state indeed. You'll note from the world map in that link that India glows like a fireplace in this business. Nigeria has a prominence that it does not attain in the legitimate science publishing world, and there are exotic destinations like Oman and the Seychelles to be had as well. The editors of these "journals" tend to be people you've never heard of from universities that you didn't even know existed. And the editorial boards and lists of reviewers have plenty of those folks, mixed in with people who reviewed one paper before they didn't know better, and with people who didn't realize that their names were on the mastheads at all.

Bohannon didn't actually submit the exact same manuscript to all 304. He generated mix-and-match versions using an underlying template, giving him variations of the same crap and taking great care that the resulting papers should be obviously flawed:

he papers describe a simple test of whether cancer cells grow more slowly in a test tube when treated with increasing concentrations of a molecule. In a second experiment, the cells were also treated with increasing doses of radiation to simulate cancer radiotherapy. The data are the same across papers, and so are the conclusions: The molecule is a powerful inhibitor of cancer cell growth, and it increases the sensitivity of cancer cells to radiotherapy.

There are numerous red flags in the papers, with the most obvious in the first data plot. The graph's caption claims that it shows a "dose-dependent" effect on cell growth—the paper's linchpin result—but the data clearly show the opposite. The molecule is tested across a staggering five orders of magnitude of concentrations, all the way down to picomolar levels. And yet, the effect on the cells is modest and identical at every concentration.

One glance at the paper's Materials & Methods section reveals the obvious explanation for this outlandish result. The molecule was dissolved in a buffer containing an unusually large amount of ethanol. The control group of cells should have been treated with the same buffer, but they were not. Thus, the molecule's observed "effect" on cell growth is nothing more than the well-known cytotoxic effect of alcohol.

The second experiment is more outrageous. The control cells were not exposed to any radiation at all. So the observed "interactive effect" is nothing more than the standard inhibition of cell growth by radiation. Indeed, it would be impossible to conclude anything from this experiment.

I like this - the paper looks superficially presentable, but if you actually read it, then it's worthless. And yes, I realize that I've described a reasonable fraction of the ones that actually get published, but this is a more egregious example. I hope. The protocol was that Bohannon submitted the paper, and if it was rejected outright, that was that. If any reply came back addressing the paper's flaws in any way, he had a version ready to send back with more stuff in it, but without fixing any of the underlying problems. And if the paper was accepted, at any point in the process, he sent the journal a note that they'd discovered a serious flaw in their work and had to withdraw the manuscript.

157 journals accepted the paper, and 98 rejected it. He'd submitted it to a further 49 journals from his original list, but at least 29 of those appeared to be out of the business entirely, and the other 20 still had the paper "under review". So of those 255 decisions, 149 of them looked as if they'd occurred with little or no review. For a rejection, that's not so bad - this is a perfect example of manuscript that should not even be sent out for review. But the acceptances, well. . .

The other 106 editorial decisions made with some review are problematic, too. 70% of these were acceptances. Even in the few cases (36 times out of 304) where the paper was actually reviewed, and the reviewers realized that something was wrong with it (as they should have), the paper was accepted by 16 journals anyway.

The Elsevier journal that took this heap of junk was Drug Invention Today, in case you're wondering. I've never heard of it, and now I know why. The Sage journal was the Journal of International Medical Research, so you can strike that one off your list, too, assuming that the name wasn't enough all by itself. Another big open-access publisher, Hindawi (they advertise on the back cover of Chemistry World in the UK) rejected the paper from two of its journals, much to their relief. Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers came as as pretty accurate, as well it might.

The problems with all this are obvious. These people are ripping off their authors for whatever publication fees they can scam, and some of these authors are not in a position to afford the treatment they're getting. No doubt some subset of the people who send manuscripts to these places are cynically padding their publication lists. The "editors" of these things get to reap a little unearned prestige for their "efforts" as well, so the whole enterprise just adds to the number of self-inflated jackasses with padded reputations, and the world is infested with too many of those people already. But I'm sure that there's another subset of authors who don't realize that they're submitting their results into a compost pile, and being asked to pay for the privilege. The first group are contemptible; the second group is sad. None of it's good.

Comments (57) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

October 3, 2013

RSS Readers: An Update

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The topic of RSS feeds for keeping up with the scientific literature has come up around here several times, especially since the demise of Google Reader. I've been trying several of these out, and wanted to report back. The Old Reader looked promising, but they seem to have had trouble dealing with the influx of users, leading to a notice a couple of months back that they were basically closing the service off to new users. This now seems to have been walked back: if others have found that they've settled things down, it's still definitely worth a look. I tried Feedly for a while, but couldn't stand the way that it dealt with graphical abstracts, and it seemed to hang on me a bit too often. So now I'm evaluating NewsBlur, and so far, it's working well, and doing what I want it to do. Keep in mind that I'm not a big social-share-this-story guy when it comes to RSS - in fact, since I use it for work, I really can't be. I just need a way to deal with the continual geyser of scientific publication.

Comments (46) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

October 2, 2013

Results From the JACS Challenge

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The first results are in for the "JACS Challenge" that I mentioned here the other day. It looks like people's picks did correlate with later citation counts, overall, but with some curious exceptions. Some things that looked as if they would have been referred to a lot weren't, such as a paper on solventless polymerization. And a paper on transition-metal catalyzed boron-nitrogen bond formation was only picked by two respondents, but has amassed 258 citations since it was published. For the most part, though, people tended to judge the past pretty well (here's the PDF with all the statistics, if you're interested).

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 30, 2013

They'll Fake the Journal if You'll Fake the Papers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The Economist has a disturbing article on the extent of academic publishing fraud in China. It's disturbing that it goes on so much, and should be disturbing that it's in The Economist:

DISGUISED as employees of a gas company, a team of policemen burst into a flat in Beijing on September 1st. Two suspects inside panicked and tossed a plastic bag full of money out of a 15th-floor window. Red hundred-yuan notes worth as much as $50,000 fluttered to the pavement below.

Money raining down on pedestrians was not as bizarre, however, as the racket behind it. China is known for its pirated DVDs and fake designer gear, but these criminals were producing something more intellectual: fake scholarly articles which they sold to academics, and counterfeit versions of existing medical journals in which they sold publication slots.

As China tries to take its seat at the top table of global academia, the criminal underworld has seized on a feature in its research system: the fact that research grants and promotions are awarded on the basis of the number of articles published, not on the quality of the original research. . .

If there's one thing that economists are sure of, it's that you get what you subsidize (even if you might not have realized up front just what it was you were paying for). And if the Chinese establishment has decided that long publications lists are necessary, then long publication lists they shall have. The same thing happens in a drug research department when management is so foolish as to reward people for sheer number of compounds submitted - you get a deluge of amides, sulfonamides, and methyl-ethyl-butyl-futile coupling reactions. One half of the stockroom gets mixed with the other half, in the presence of HATU and/or palladiu, and voila, productivity on a shingle.

At least those are real componds. Apparently, many of the papers being generated under the Chinese onslaught are not just repetitious, bite-sized chunklets of stretched-out lab results, but flat-out fantasies:

The pirated medical-journal racket broken up in Beijing shows that there is a well-developed market for publication beyond the authentic SCI journals. The cost of placing an article in one of the counterfeit journals was up to $650, police said. Purchasing a fake article cost up to $250. Police said the racket had earned several million yuan ($500,000 or more) since 2009. Customers were typically medical researchers angling for promotion.

And this makes you wonder how many of the people doing the evaluating also knew, or suspected, that these journals were fakes, but had reasons of their own to pretend otherwise. Something needs to be done about all this, clearly, but that's not going to be possible without a lot of disruption. The longer it goes on, though, the worse that disruption might be. . .

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

September 26, 2013

An Unknown Author With Someone Else's Work. Why?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a bizarre one: someone apparently faked up a bunch of author names and contact information, and published results (in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications) that they're heard Bruce Spiegelman of Harvard talk about. The motive? Well. . .the only thing that makes sense is sheer vituperativeness, and even that doesn't make much. Here's the story - see if you can make sense of it!

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

September 23, 2013

What's An Important Paper? Take the JACS Challenge!

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a darn good question: how good are we at telling (when they're published) what scientific papers are important? We were talking around here the other day about famous work that had been rejected, and this is the less dramatic aspect of the same phenomenon.

At ScienceGeist, they're putting this to an empirical test. Given a ten-year-old issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society, could a person predict which papers in it have had the most impact? Well, here's the issue, and here's the survey to take after you've looked it over. Please don't cheat by looking up citation counts or the like - approach this one cold and use your mighty scientific intuition. I'll be putting my own answers in later this morning. I look forward to seeing the results!

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 17, 2013

Thoughts on the Scientific Publishing Model, And Its Inverse

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I mentioned the idea of an Elsevier boycott here last year. Here's someone who's thought about another course of action: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em - up to a point:

How about this for a solution:

1. We start a (say) monthly journal.

2. Set up a simple, lucrative payment for accepted articles. As a first stab, how about $10,000 paid personally to the researchers responsible. Similarly, each reviewer receives $2,000 for each article reviewed.

I imagine this would be enough to attract some serious submissions. So serious, in fact, that universities and libraries would be obliged to subscribe (at drastically reduced prices). Oh yeah, and you can only submit articles if you or your institution is a subscriber.

So every month hundreds of thousands of dollars would be distributed to scientists, and there would be a monthly prize pool for excellent research. And I bet the journal would be a cracking read (or as cracking as stiff scientific prose ever is, anyway).

But why not take it a step further.

3. Assuming, of course, you executed that first step and attracted some worthwhile research, you could simply distribute all of the profits. So if you attracted 5% of the market… say 50% penetration at half price, you would be able to distribute 250m a year (I know, I know).

I imagine a star researcher would prefer to get paid $200k rather than submit to Nature. And as the quality of the new journal improved, it could even end up becoming more prestigious.

The first problem I have with this, and it's a big one, is that if you're giving "drastically reduced" subscription prices to libraries and universities, where are all the profits coming from that you're using to pay the authors? I believe that squeezing institutional subscribers is, in fact, the business model for many of the scientific publishers. A second difficulty (there are others, too) is that our current system already encourages people to divide publications up into smaller units and get a longer list of papers to their name. If there's sill more incentive to publish (cash rewards!), I can imagine this problem only getting worse.

The general rule in nonscientific publishing, that "money flows towards the author", is based on a market that pays for the finished products voluntarily, and has the option of not reaching into its collective pocket at all. Publishers are also free to pick and choose among the many, many manuscript opportunities they're offered, trying to find those that they think will provide a return on their own investments of time and money.

Scientific publishing is a different undertaking, with a mixed set of motivations. We're publishing our results to show what we've accomplished, and to add to the storehouse of human knowledge (as opposed, say, to adding to the storehouse of human romance novels or slow-cooker chicken recipe compendia). We're also publishing to make ourselves look better, to our current employers and to potential future ones, not that such publications are a very efficient way to do that, but still. And the readers are keeping up with the published matter partly out of a desire to learn about what we have to say, and partly out of professional necessity.

Here's the thing: if it were not for the expense necessary to produce the journals, there would be no market involved at all. In the early days of science, results were distributed by personal correspondence, and journals are, in a way, just collections of such letters. Some of them, you'll notice, refer to that function by having "Letters" in their names. No one was paid to write those letters to their colleagues, and no one paid to receive them. The only expenses were the writing materials, the time it took for composition, and postage - just as the expenses now are the time and effort for composition (on the author's part) and the time and effort for editing, reviewing, and publishing (on the journal's part). These expenses have, in theory, been going down as fewer journals are published on pressed tree sheets and hauled around by mail trucks, but they cannot go to zero as long as there is editing involved, as well as commentary on the papers themselves and publicity for them, not to mention things like server maintenance, etc.

All the fights about the cost of scientific journals are fought on that narrow strip of ground. How much does it cost to do these things, and is it truly worth what people pay for them? Otherwise, we might all just as well upload everything into a central electronic archive, with a nominal fee to keep the hardware running. We'd then be back to sending letters around to let everyone else know when we've put in something that we think is hot stuff, or setting up web sites to get the news out. And some of those might become useful enough to start charging a subscription fee, and then. . .

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 10, 2013

Great Papers That Have Been Rejected

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A discussion in the lab brought up this topic: there have been, so everyone hears, famous papers in the sciences that were rejected by the first journals that they were submitted to. I believe, for example, that Dan Schectman faced a lot of opposition to getting his first quasicrystal work published (and he certainly got a lot, notably from Linus Pauling, after it came out). To pick one, the original Krebs cycle paper was turned down by Nature, which a later editor called the journal's biggest single mistake. Here are some famous examples from computer science and related mathematics (update: in a parody/spoof paper!) and here's a discussion from an economist on this topic in his own field - I believe that the original Black-Scholes option pricing model paper was turned down as well.

If anyone has more examples to add from chemistry, I'd be glad to highlight them. I have some more thoughts on the subject that I'll expand into another post later on. . .

Comments (36) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 9, 2013

What To Do About Chemistry Papers That Don't Work?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wanted to follow up on a point raised in the comments to this morning's post. Reader DJ writes that:

Our lab recently tried to repeat a procedure from a TL methodology paper on the amination of amines to make protected hydrazines. We noticed that the entire paper is wrong since the authors did not analyze the product NMRs carefully, and incorrectly assumed that they were forming the desired hydrazines, rather than the rearranged alkoxyamines. It's a systemic error throughout the paper that renders the entire premise and methodology essentially useless. So our quandry is this: (1) This is clearly not a case of fraud, but just bad science. (2) Our discovery is not all that interesting on its own, since the unusual reaction pathway has little practical value, and (3) the original report is from a TL paper that probably not many people will read in the first place. Still, I am tempted to do SOMETHING to correct the public record, but what? Maybe contact the original authors (somewhere in India)? Try to write a 'rebuttal style' paper in the same journal? Any suggestions?

That's a really good question. And I have a personal interest in it - no, I didn't write the hydrazine paper. I've recently tried to use a method in a paper from Chemical Communications that I cannot get to work. I gave it several tries, messing around with fresh reagents and so on, but I get nothing. In my case, I've written to the authors, and received no reply whatsoever. So, like DJ, I'm wondering what to do next. Writing to the authors is the first step that I recommend that he take, but he might well end up in the same situation I am.

So what next? Neither of these rise to a Blog-Syn level, I think, because just having half a dozen more people confirm that "Yeah, this stuff doesn't work" doesn't seem like a good use of people's time. (I think that Blog Syn efforts are better for reactions that work, but not as well as they're supposed to, because of some variables that aren't well worked out in the original papers). I'm not particularly interested in running a "Name and Shame" site for organic chemistry papers that can't be reproduced (and anyone who does will, I think, find themselves with a lot more work and many more headaches than they'd imagined). But what is there to do?

Comments (42) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

Exposing Faked Scientific Papers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Chemistry World has a good article on the problem of shaky data in journal article, and the intersecting problem of what to do about it in the chemistry blogging world. Paul Bracher's ChemBark is, naturally, a big focus of the piece, since he's been highlighting some particularly egregious examples in the last couple of months (which I've linked to from here).

The phrase "witch hunt" has been thrown around by some observers, but I don't think that's fair or appropriate. In great contrast to the number of witches around (and their effectiveness), faked information in published scientific articles is very much a real thing, and can have real consequences. Time spent looking for it and exposing it is not time wasted, not when it's at its current levels. But who should be doing the looking and the exposing?

The standard answer is "Why, journal editors and reviewers, who shouldn't be letting this stuff past in the first place". Quite true. But in many cases, they are letting it past, so what should be done once it's published? A quiet, gentlemanly note to the editorial staff? Or a big blazing row in a public forum, such as a widely-read blog? Even though I don't start many of these myself, I come down more on the side of the latter. There are problems with that stance, of course - you have to be pretty sure that there's something wrong before you go making a big deal out of it, for one thing. Hurting someone else's reputation for no reason would be a bad thing, as would damaging your own credibility by making baseless accusations.

But in some of these recent cases, there's been little doubt about the problem. Take that nanorod paper: the most common result when I showed to to people was "Oh, come on." (And the most common result when I showed the famous "Just make up an elemental" paper to people was "Oh, (expletive)", with several common words all filling in appropriately). So if there's clearly trouble with a published paper, why is it such a good thing to make a big public spectacle out of it?

Deterrence. I really think that there will be less of this if people think that there's a reasonable chance that fake science will be exposed widely and embarrassingly. Covering up half your NMR spectrum with a box of digital white-out is fraud and people committing fraud have given up their opportunity to be treated with respect. And don't forget, the whole deterrence argument applies to editors and reviewers, too. I can guarantee that many chemists looked at these recent examples and wondered if they would have let these papers go through the review process, through carelessness or lack of time, and resolved to do better the next time. I certainly did.

That said, I do not intend to make this blog the full-time scourge of the chemical literature by patrolling the literature myself. If I see something suspicious, I'll speak up about it, and if other chemistry blogs (or readers) pick up on something, I'm very glad to hear about it or link to it. But finding these examples is a perfect example of something that I think is best left to the crowd. The person best equipped to discover a fraudulent paper is the person who is interested in its subject and would like to build on its results - in other words, the person who would be most harmed by it. And if someone fakes a paper, but no one ever reads it or refers to it, well, that's the author's own reward, and I hope that they enjoy it.

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

August 30, 2013

Welcome to the Author's Brain. The "Fasten Seatbelts" Sign Is Illuminated

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, it's the Friday before a long holiday weekend here in the US, so I don't know if this is the day for long, detailed posts. I do have some oddities in the queue, though, so this is probably a good day to clear them out.

For starters, here's one in the tradition of the (in)famous Andrulis "gyre" paper. Another open-access publisher (SAGE) has an unusual item in their journal Qualitative Inquiry. (Some title, by the way - you could guess for days about what might appear under that category). The paper's title gets things off to a fine start: "Welcome to My Brain". And the abstract? Glad you asked:

This is about developing recursive, intrinsic, self-reflexive as de-and/or resubjective always evolving living research designs. It is about learning and memory cognition and experiment poetic/creative pedagogical science establishing a view of students ultimately me as subjects of will (not) gaining from disorder and noise: Antifragile and antifragility and pedagogy as movements in/through place/space. Further, it is about postconceptual hyperbolic word creation thus a view of using language for thinking not primarily for communication. It is brain research with a twist and becoming, ultimately valuation of knowledges processes: Becoming with data again and again and self-writing theory. I use knitting the Möbius strip and other art/math hyperbolic knitted and crocheted objects to illustrate nonbinary . . . perhaps. Generally; this is about asking how-questions more than what-questions.

Right. That's word-for-word, by the way, even though it reads as if parts of speech have been excised. Now, I do not, sadly, have access to journals with the kind of reach that Qualitative Inquiry displays, so I have not attempted to read the whole text. But the abstract sounds either like a very elaborate (and unenlightening) word game, or the product of a disturbed mind. The Neurobonkers blog, though, has some more, and it definitely points toward the latter:

This article is therefore about developing recursive intrinsic self-reflexive as de- and/or resubjective always evolving living research designs. Inquiry perhaps full stop—me: An auto-brain—biography and/or a brain theo­rizing itself; me theorizing my brain. It is thus about theo­rizing bodily here brain and transcorporeal materialities, in ways that neither push us back into any traps of biological determinism or cultural essentialism, nor make us leave bodily matter and biologies behind.

Apprarently, most of the manuscript is taken up with those "This is about. . ." constructions, which doesn't make for easy reading, either. At various points, a being/character called "John" makes appearances, as do recurring references to knitting and to Möbius strips. Brace yourselves:

Knitting John, John knitting. Knitting John Möbius. Möbius knitting John. Giant Möbius Strips have been used as conveyor belts (to make them last longer, since “each side” gets the same amount of wear) and as continuous-loop recording tapes (to double the playing time). In the 1960’s Möbius Strips were used in the design of versatile electronic resistors. Freestyle skiers have named one of their acrobatic stunts the Möbius Flip. The wear and tear of my efforts. My stunts, enthusiasm knitting. My brain and doubling and John.

OK, that's deranged. And how could anyone at SAGE have possibly reviewed it? This is the same question that came up with the MDPI journals and the Andrulis paper - five minutes with this stuff and you feel like calling up the author and telling them to adjust their dosages (or perhaps like adjusting yours). This sort of thing is interesting in a roadside-accident sort of way, but it also calls open-access publishing into disrepute. Maybe it's time for not only a list of predatory publishers, but a list of nonpredatory ones that freely admit garbage.

Comments (43) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 27, 2013

Not Sent Out For Review

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Blogger Pete over at Fragment-Based Drug Discovery has a tale to tell about trying to get a paper published. He sent in a manuscript on alkane/water partition coefficients to the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, only to get back the "not sent out for review" response. That's the worst, the "We're not even going to consider this one" letter. And the odd thing is that, as he rightly put it, this does sound like a JCIM sort of paper, but the editor's response was that it was inappropriate for the journal, and that they had "limited interest" in QSAR/QSPR studies.

So off the paper went to the Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. But as it was going to press, what should appear in JCIM but a paper on. . .alkane/water partition coefficients. There follows some speculation on how and why this happened, and if further details show up, I'll report on them.

But the whole "not sent out for review" category is worth thinking about. I'd guess that most papers that fall into that category truly deserve to be there - junk, junk that's written impossibly and impenetrably poorly, things that should have been sent to a completely different journal. These are the scientific equivalent of Theresa Nielsen Hayden's famous Slushkiller post, about the things that show up unsolicited at a publisher's office. If you're editing a science fiction magazine, you might be surprised to get lyric poetry submissions in another language, or biographical memoirs about growing up in Nebraska - but you'd only be surprised, apparently, if you'd never edited a science fiction magazine before (or any other kind).

But a journal editor can consign all sorts of papers to the outer darkness. At some titles, just getting a manuscript sent out to the referees is an accomplishment, because the usual response is "Stop wasting our time" (albeit not in those exact words, not usually). An author isn't going to be surprised in those cases, but getting that treatment at a less selective journal is more problematic.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 15, 2013

Big Pharma And Its Research Publications

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A longtime reader sent along this article from the journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change, which I'll freely admit never having spent much time with before. It's from a team of European researchers, and it's titled "Big Pharma, little science? A bibliometric perspective on Big Pharma's R&D decline".

What they've done is examine the publication record for fifteen of the largest drug companies from 1995 to 2009. They start off by going into the reasons why this approach has to be done carefully, since publications from industrial labs are produced (and not produced) for a variety of different reasons. But in the end:

Given all these limitations, we conclude that the analysis of publications does not in itself reflect the dynamics of Big Pharma's R&D. However, at the high level of aggregation we conduct this study (based on about 10,000 publications per year in total, with around 150 to 1500 publications per firm annually) it does raise interesting questions on R&D trends and firm strategies which then can be discussed in light of complementary quantitative evidence such as the trends revealed in studies using a variety of other metrics such as patents and, as well as statements made by firms in statutory filing and reports to investors.

So what did they find? In the 350 most-represented journals, publications from the big companies made up about 4% of the total content over those years (which comes out to over 10,000 papers). But this number has been dropping slightly, but steadily over the period. There are now about 9% few publications from Big Pharma than there were at the beginning of the period. But this effect might largely be explained by mergers and acquisitions over the same period - in every case, the new firm seems to publish fewer papers than the old ones did as a whole.

And here are the subject categories where those papers get published. The green nodes are topics such as pharmacology and molecular biology, and the blue ones are organic chemistry, medicinal chemistry, etc. These account for the bulk of the papers, along with clinical medicine.
The number of authors per publication has been steadily increasing (in fact, even faster than the other baseline for the journals as a whole), and the organizations-per-paper has been creeping up as well, also slightly faster than the baseline. The authors interpret this as an increase in collaboration in general, and note that it's even more pronounced in areas where Big Pharma's publication rate has grown from a small starting point, which (plausibly) they assign to bringing in outside expertise.

One striking result the paper picks up on is that the European labs have been in decline from a publication standpoint, but this seems to be mostly due to the UK, Switzerland, and France. Germany has held up better. Anyone who's been watching the industry since 1995 can assign names to the companies who have moved and closed certain research sites, which surely accounts for much of this effect. The influence of the US-based labs is clear:

Although in most of this analysis we adopt a Europe versus USA comparative perspective, a more careful analysis of the data reveals that European pharmaceutical companies are still remarkably national (or bi-national as a results of mergers in the case of AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis). Outside their home countries, European firms have more publications from US-based labs than all their non-domestic European labs (i.e. Europe excluding the ‘home country’ of the firm). Such is the extent of the national base for collaborations that when co-authorships are mapped into organisational networks there are striking similarities to the natural geographic distribution of countries. . .with Big Pharma playing a notable role spanning the bibliometric equivalent of the ‘Atlantic’.

Here's one of the main conclusions from the trends the authors have picked up:

The move away from Open Science (sharing of knowledge through scientific conferences and publications) is compatible and consistent with the increasing importance of Open Innovation (increased sharing of knowledge — but not necessarily in the public domain). More specifically, Big Pharma is not merely retreating from publication activities but in doing so it is likely to substitute more general dissemination of research findings in publications for more exclusive direct sharing of knowledge with collaboration partners. Hence, the reduction in publication activities – next to R&D cuts and lab closures – is indicative of a shift in Big Pharma's knowledge sharing and dissemination strategies.

Putting this view in a broader historical perspective, one can interpret the retreat of Big Pharma from Open Science, as the recognition that science (unlike specific technological capabilities) was never a core competence of pharmaceutical firms and that publication activity required a lot of effort, often without generating the sort of value expected by shareholders. When there are alternative ways to share knowledge with partners, e.g. via Open Innovation agreements, these may be attractive. Indeed an associated benefit of this process may be that Big Pharma can shield itself from scrutiny in the public domain by shifting and distributing risk exposure to public research organisations and small biotech firms.

Whether the retreat from R&D and the focus on system integration are a desirable development depends on the belief in the capacities of Big Pharma to coordinate and integrate these activities for the public good. At this stage, one can only speculate. . .

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | Drug Industry History | The Scientific Literature

August 14, 2013

Nanorods? Or Photoshop?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

If you haven't seen this, which goes into some very odd images from a paper in the ACS journal Nano Letters, then have a look. One's first impression is that this is a ridiculously crude Photoshop job, but an investigation appears to be underway to see if that's the case. . .

Update: the paper has now been withdrawn. The chemistry blogs get results!

Comments (28) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 8, 2013

Make Up the Elemental Analysis: An Update

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Chemistry Blog has more on the incident picked up first at ChemBark and noted here yesterday. This rapidly-becoming-famous case has the Supporting Information file of a paper published at Organometallics seemingly instructing a co-author to "make up" an elemental analysis to put in the manuscript.

Now the editor of the journal (John Gladysz of Texas A&M) has responded to Chemistry Blog as follows:

Wednesday 07 August
Dear Friends of Organometallics,

Chemical Abstracts alerted us to the statement you mention,which was overlooked during the peer review process, on Monday 05 August. At that time, the manuscript was pulled from the print publication queue. The author has explained to us that the statement pertains to a compound that was ”downgraded” from something being isolated to a proposed intermediate. Hence, we have left the ASAP manuscript on the web for now. We are requiring that the author submit originals of the microanalysis data before putting the manuscript back in the print publication queue. Many readers have commented that the statement reflects poorly on the moral or ethical character of the author, but the broad “retribution” that some would seek is not our purview. As Editors, our “powers” are limited to appropriate precautionary measures involving future submissions by such authors to Organometallics, the details of which would be confidential (ACS Ethical Guidelines, Our decision to keep the supporting information on the web, at least for the time being, is one of transparency and honesty toward the chemical community. Other stakeholders can contemplate a fuller range of responses. Some unedited opinions from the community are available in the comments section of a blog posting:

If you have any criticisms of the actions described above, please do not hesitate to share them with me. Thanks much for being a reader of Organometallics, and best wishes. . .

This is the first report of the corresponding author, Reto Dorta, responding about this issue (several other people have tried to contact him, with no apparent success). So much for the theory, advanced by several people in the comments section at ChemBark, that "make up" was being used in the British-English sense of "prepare". Gladysz's letter gets across his feelings about the matter pretty clearly, I'd say.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

August 7, 2013

New Frontiers in Analytical Chemistry

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A reader sends this new literature citation along, from Organometallics. He directed my attention to the Supplementary Information file, page 12. And what do we find there?

. . .Solvent was then removed to leave a yellow residue in the vial, the remaining clear, yellow solution was concentrated to a volume of about 1ml, and diethyl ether was added in a dropwise manner to the stirred solution to precipitate a yellow solid. The vial was centrifuged so the supernatant solvent could be decanted off by Pasteur pipette. The yellow solid was washed twice more with ether and the dried completely under high vacuum to give 99mg (93% yield) of product.

Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis...

And don't forget to proofread the manuscript, either, while you're at it. Oops.

Update: I see that Chembark is on this one, and has gone as far as contacting the corresponding author, whose day has gotten quite a bit longer. . .

Comments (28) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Analytical Chemistry | The Scientific Literature

July 16, 2013

Touching Up the Spectra

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Organic chemists have been taking NMR spectra for quite a while now. Routine use came on in the 1960s, and higher-field instruments went from exotic big-ticket items in the 1970s to ordinary equipment in the 1980s. But NMR can tell you more about your sample than you wanted to know (good analytical techniques are annoying that way). So what to do when you have those little peaks showing up where no peaks should be?

The correct answer is "Live with 'em or clean up your sample", but wouldn't it be so much easier and faster to just clean up the spectrum? After all, that's all that most people are ever going to see - right? This little line of thought has occurred to countless chemists over the years. Back In The Day, the technology needed to remove solvent peaks, evidence of isomers, and other pesky impurities was little more than a bottle of white-out and a pen (to redraw the lovely flat baseline once the extra peaks were daubed away). Making a photocopy of the altered spectrum gave you publication-ready purity in one easy step.

NMR spectra are probably the most-doctored of the bunch, but LC/MS and HPLC traces are very capable of showing you peaks you didn't want to see, either. These days there are all sorts of digital means to accomplish this deception, although I've no doubt that the white-out bottle is still deployed. In case anyone had any doubt about that, last month Amos Smith, well-known synthetic organic chemist and editor of Organic Letters, had this to say in a special editorial comment in the journal:

Recently, with the addition of a Data Analyst to our staff, Organic Letters has begun checking the submitted Supporting Information more closely. As a result of this increased scrutiny, we have discovered several instances where reported spectra had been edited to remove evidence of impurities.

Such acts of data manipulation are unacceptable. Even if the experimental yields and conclusions of a study are not affected, ANY manipulation of research data casts doubts on the overall integrity and validity of the work reported.

That it does. He went on to serve notice on authors that the journal will be checking, and will be enforcing and penalizing. And you can tell that Smith and the Org Lett staff have followed up on some of these already, because they've already had a chance to hear the default excuse:

In some of the cases that we have investigated further, the Corresponding Author asserted that a student had edited the spectra without the Corresponding Author’s knowledge. This is not an acceptable excuse! The Corresponding Author (who is typically also the research supervisor of the work performed) is ultimately responsible for warranting the integrity of the content of the submitted manuscript. . .

As the editorial goes on the say, and quite rightly, if a student did indeed alter the spectrum before showing it to the boss, it's very likely because the boss was running a group whose unspoken rule was that only perfection was acceptable. And that's an invitation to fraud, large and small. I'm glad to see statements like Smith's - the only ways to keep down this sort of data manipulation are to make the rewards for it small, increase the chances of it being found out, and make the consequences for it real.

As for those, the editorial speaks only of "significant penalties". But I have some ideas for those that might help people think twice about the data clean-up process. How about a special correction in the journal, showing the altered spectra, with red circles around the parts that had been flattened out? And a copy of the same to the relevant granting agencies and department heads? That might help get the message out, you think?

As an aside, I wanted to mention that I have seen someone stand right up and take responsibility for extra peaks in an NMR. Sort of. I saw a person once presenting what was supposed to be the final product's spectrum, only there were several other singlet peaks scattered around. "What are those?" came the inevitable question. "Water" was the answer. "Umm. . .how many water peaks, exactly?" "Oh, this one is water in solution. And this one is water complexed with the compound. And this one is water adsorbed to the inside of the NMR tube. And this one is water adsorbed to the outside of the. . ." It took a little while for order to be restored at that point. . .

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Analytical Chemistry | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

July 9, 2013

Non-Reproducible Science: A Survey

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The topic of scientific reproducibility has come up around here before, as it deserves to. The literature is not always reliable, and it's unreliable for a lot of different reasons. Here's a new paper in PLOS ONE surveying academic scientists for their own experiences:

To examine a microcosm of the academic experience with data reproducibility, we surveyed the faculty and trainees at MD Anderson Cancer Center using an anonymous computerized questionnaire; we sought to ascertain the frequency and potential causes of non-reproducible data. We found that ~50% of respondents had experienced at least one episode of the inability to reproduce published data; many who pursued this issue with the original authors were never able to identify the reason for the lack of reproducibility; some were even met with a less than “collegial” interaction.

Yeah, I'll bet they were. It turns out that about half the authors who had been contacted about problems with a published paper responded "negatively or indifferently", according to the survey respondents. As to how these things make it into the literature in the first place, I don't think that anyone will be surprised by this part:

Our survey also provides insight regarding the pressure to publish in order to maintain a current position or to promote ones scientific career. Almost one third of all trainees felt pressure to prove a mentor's hypothesis even when data did not support it. This is an unfortunate dilemma, as not proving a hypothesis could be misinterpreted by the mentor as not knowing how to perform scientific experiments. Furthermore, many of these trainees are visiting scientists from outside the US who rely on their trainee positions to maintain visa status that affect themselves and their families in our country.

And some of these visiting scientists, it should be noted, come from backgrounds in authority-centered and/or shame-based cultures, where going to the boss with the news that his or her big idea didn't work is not a very appealing option. It's not for anyone, naturally, but it's especially hard if you feel that you're contradicting the head of the lab and bringing shame on yourself in the process.

As for what to do about all this, the various calls for more details in papers and better reviewing are hard to complain about. But while I think that those would help, I don't see them completely solving the problem. This is a problem of human nature; as long as science is done by humans, we're going to have sloppy work all the way up to outright cheating. What we need to do is find ways to make it harder to cheat, and less rewarding - that will at least slow it down a bit.

There will always be car thieves, too, but we don't have to make it easy for them, either. Some of our publishing practices, though, are the equivalent of habitually walking away with the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Rewarding academic scientists (at all levels) so directly for the number of their publications is one of the big ones. Letting big exciting results through without good statistical foundations is another.

In this vein, a reader sends along the news that the Reproducibility Initiative is now offering grants for attempts to check big results in the literature. That's the way to get it done, and I'm glad to see some money forthcoming. This effort is concentrating on experimental psychology, which is appropriate, given that the field has had some recent scandals (follow-up here) and is now in a big dispute over the reproducibility of even its honestly-meant data. They need all the help they can get over there - but I'll be glad to see some of this done over here in the biomedical field, too.

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

July 8, 2013

19 Years to a Retraction. Bonus Midnight Camera Footage Included.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This Retraction Watch post details the longest correction/retraction saga I've heard of yet. A 1994 paper in Nature has finally been pulled back, after years and years of wrangling. And by "wrangling" I mean multiple attempted repeats, blinded samples, fraught exchanges over scientific ethics with one of the most high-profile professors in the Czech Republic and hidden camera footage from the lab freezer. Yep, it got to that point - midnight break-ins to alter the stored samples. Read the post for more; it's really something.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

June 24, 2013

How Robust Is That New Reaction, Anyway?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a paper in Nature Chemistry that addresses something that isn't explicitly targeted as often as it should be: the robustness of new reactions. The authors, I think, are right on target with this:

We believe a major hurdle to the application of a new chemical methodology to real synthetic problems is a lack of information regarding its application beyond the idealized conditions of the seminal report. Two major considerations in this respect are the functional group tolerance of a reaction and the stability of specific chemical motifs under reaction conditions. . .

Taking into account the limitations of the current methods, we propose that a lack of understanding regarding the application of a given reaction to non-idealized synthetic problems can result in a reluctance to apply new methodology. Confidence in the utility of a new reaction develops over time—often over a number of years—as the reaction is gradually applied within total syntheses, follow-up methodological papers are published, or personal experience is developed. Unfortunately, even when this information has evolved, it is often widely dispersed, fragmented and difficult to locate. To address this problem, both the tolerance of a reaction to chemical functionality and of the chemical functionality to the reaction conditions must be established when appropriate, and reported in an easily accessible manner, preferably alongside the new methodology.

This is as opposed to the current standard of one or two short tables of different substrates, and then a quick application to some natural product framework. Even those papers, I have to say, are better than some of the stuff in the literature, but we still could be doing better. This paper proposes an additional test: running the reaction in the presence of various added compounds, and reporting the % product that forms under these conditions, the % starting material remaining, and the % additive remaining as well. (The authors suggest using a simple, robust method like GC to get these numbers, which is good advice). This technique will give an idea of the tolerance of the reagents and catalysts to other functional groups, without incorporating them into new substrates, and can tell you if the reaction is just slowed down, or if something about the additive stops everything dead.

Applying this setup to a classic Buchwald amination reaction shows that free aliphatic and aromatic alcohols and amines kill the reaction. Esters and ketones are moderately tolerated. Extraneous heterocycles can slow things down, but not in all cases. But alkynes, nitriles, and amides come through fine: the product forms, and the additives aren't degraded.

I like this idea, and I hope it catches on. But I think that the only way it will is if editors and reviewers start asking for it. Otherwise, it'll be put in the "More work" category, which is easy for authors to ignore. If something like this became the standard, though, all of us synthetic chemists would be better off.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

June 20, 2013

The Perfect Papers For Each Journal

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

For the Journal of the American Chemical Society:
"Nanoscale Stuff That We Can Imagine Could Have Gone to Science or Nature, But It Went There First So It Ends Up Here"

"Another Row of Glowing Sample Vials"

For Chemical Communications:
"Wild, Out-There Amalgam of Three or Four Trendy Topics All at Once, All in Two Manuscript Pages, From a Chinese Lab You've Never Heard of"

"A Completely New Assay Technique That Looks Like It Should Need A Twelve-Page Paper, Here In Two Because We're First and Don't Forget It"

For Angewandte Chemie:
"An Actually Useful and Interesting Paper (We Reviewed This One, We Promise), Brought to You With a Wincing, Toe-Curling Pun in the Abstract"

"The First Plutonium-Plutonium Quintuple Bond. Who's Going to Say It Isn't?"

For the Journal of Organic Chemistry:
"Remember Us? Here's an Actual Full Paper About Some Reaction, With Experimental Details and Everything. Where Else Can You Find That, Eh?"

"A Total Synthesis That Would Have Been in JACS Back When, You Whippersnappers"

For Tetrahedron Letters
"Remember Us? Here's a Four-Page Paper About Some Reaction With No Experimental Whatsoever. Where Else Can You Find. . .Oh, Right. Never Mind."

"The Four Thousand And Forty-Seventh Way to Prepare Nitriles From Oximes"

For Organic Letters:
"A Four-Page Paper With No Experimental (Supplementary Info If You're Lucky), But One You Actually Might Want to Read"

"A New Metal-Catalyzed Coupling, Featuring a Catalyst You Can't Buy and Don't Want to Make"

For the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry:
"Big Pharma Here, With a Gigantic Flaming Viking Funeral for a Project That Chewed Up Eight Years, And Here's All We Have to Show For It?"

"Small Academic Lab Here, With A Series of Rhodanines and Polyphenols That Are Seriously Hot Leads for At Least Ten Diseases"

For Science:
"Don't See Much Synthetic Chemistry Over Here, Do You? That's How You Know This is Hot Stuff!"

"People Only Read One or Two Papers Out of Any Issue of This Journal, and This Isn't One of Them, is It?"

For Synthesis:
"As Long as There are Five-Membered Heterocyclic Systems, and German Labs to Make Every Possible Derivative of Them, We Will Survive"

For SynLett
"The Number of Four-Page Organic Chemistry Manuscripts Is Larger Than You Can Comprehend. Obviously."

For ACS Chemical Biology, ChemBioChem, Nature Chemical Biology, Chemistry and Biology, et very much al.:
"Look, We Have NMR Spectra and Cell Culture Conditions in the Same Article, and It Isn't Med-Chem, So Where Else Do We Publish? Right."

Update: I've left out some journals haven't I?

For Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters:
"We Wanted to Publish This in J. Med. Chem., But It's Been So Long That We Lost Half the Analytical Data, So Here You Are"

"A Quick Resume-Building Paper, Part XVI, But Man, You Sure Need a Lot From This Journal to Build a Resume These Days"

For Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry:
"No One in History Has Ever Read This Journal Without Being Sent Here by a Literature Search, So It Doesn't Matter What Title We Give This. Cauliflower Bicycle Zip-Zang."

For Chemistry: A European Journal:
"German Flexibility, Italian Thoroughness, and the French Work Ethic Have Combined to Bring You This Research, Funded by a List of Euro-Acronyms That Takes Up Half a Page"

Comments (78) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

June 13, 2013

Watching DNA Polymerase Do Its Thing

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Single-molecule techniques are really the way to go if you're trying to understand many types of biomolecules. But they're really difficult to realize in practice (a complaint that should be kept in context, given that many of these experiments would have sounded like science fiction not all that long ago). Here's an example of just that sort of thing: watching DNA polymerase actually, well, polymerizing DNA, one base at a time.

The authors, a mixed chemistry/physics team at UC Irvine, managed to attach the business end (the Klenow fragment) of DNA Polymerase I to a carbon nanotube (a mutated Cys residue and a maleimide on the nanotube did the trick). This give you the chance to use the carbon nanotube as a field effect transistor, with changes in the conformation of the attached protein changing the observed current. It's stuff like this, I should add, that brings home to me the fact that it really is 2013, the relative scarcity of flying cars notwithstanding.

The authors had previously used this method to study attached lysozyme molecules (PDF, free author reprint access). That second link is a good example of the sort of careful brush-clearing work that has to be done with a new system like this: how much does altering that single amino acid change the structure and function of the enzyme you're studying? How do you pick which one to mutate? Does being up against the side of a carbon nanotube change things, and how much? It's potentially a real advantage that this technique doesn't require a big fluorescent label stuck to anything, but you have to make sure that attaching your test molecule to a carbon nanotube isn't even worse.
It turns out, reasonably enough, that picking the site of attachment is very important. You want something that'll respond conformationally to the actions of the enzyme, moving charged residues around close to the nanotube, but (at the same time) it can't be so crucial and wide-ranging that the activity of the system gets killed off by having these things so close, either. In the DNA polymerase study, the enzyme was about 33% less active than wild type.

And the authors do see current variations that correlate with what should be opening and closing of the enzyme as it adds nucleotides to the growing chain. Comparing the length of the generated DNA with the FET current, it appears that the enzyme incorporates a new base at least 99.8% of the time it tries to, and the mean time for this to happen is about 0.3 milliseconds. Interestingly, A-T pair formation takes a consistently longer time than C-G does, with the rate-limiting step occurring during the open conformation of the enzyme in each case.

I look forward to more applications of this idea. There's a lot about enzymes that we don't know, and these sorts of experiments are the only way we're going to find out. At present, this technique looks to be a lot of work, but you can see it firming up before your eyes. It would be quite interesting to pick an enzyme that has several classes of inhibitor and watch what happens on this scale.

It's too bad that Arthur Kornberg, the discoverer of DNA Pol I, didn't quite live to see such an interrogation of the enzyme; he would have enjoyed it very much, I think. As an aside, that last link, with its quotes from the reviewers of the original manuscript, will cheer up anyone who's recently had what they thought was a good paper rejected by some journal. Kornberg's two papers only barely made it into JBC, but one year after a referee said "It is very doubtful that the authors are entitled to speak of the enzymatic synthesis of DNA", Kornberg was awarded the Nobel for just that.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Analytical Chemistry | Biological News | The Scientific Literature

June 11, 2013

The Overselling of Ionic Liquids

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Ionic liquids (molten salts at relatively low temperatures) have been a big feature of the chemical literature for the last ten or fifteen years - enough of a feature to have attracted a few disparaging comments here, from me and from readers. There's a good article out now that talks about the early days of the field and how it grew, and it has some food for thought in it.

The initial reports in the field didn't get much attention (as is often the case). What seems to have made things take off was the possibility of replacing organic solvents with reusable, non-volatile, and (relatively) non-toxic alternatives. "Green chemistry" was (and to an extent still is) a magnet for funding, and it was the combination of this with ionic liquid (IL) work that made the field. But not all of this was helpful:

The link with green chemistry during the development of the IL field, propelled both fields forward, but at times the link was detrimental to both fields when overgeneralizations eroded confidence. ILs were originally considered as green since many of these liquid salts possess a negligible vapor pressure and might replace the use of volatile organic solvents known to result in airborne chemical contamination. The reported water stability and non-volatility led to the misconception that these salts were inherently safe and environmentally friendly. This was exacerbated by the many unsubstantiated claims that ILs were ‘green’ in introductions meant to provide the motivation for the study, even if the study itself had nothing to do with green chemistry. While it is true that the replacement of a volatile organic compound (VOC) might be preferred, proper knowledge of the chemistry of the ions must also be taken into account before classifying anything as green. Nonetheless, the statement “Ionic Liquids are green” was widely published (and can still be found in papers published today). Given the number and nature of the possible ions comprising ILs, these statements are similar to “Water is green, therefore all solvents are green.”

There were many misunderstandings at the chemical level as well:

However, just as the myriad of molecular solvents (or any compounds) can have dramatic differences in chemical, physical, and biological properties based on their chemical identity, so too can ILs. With the potential for 10^18 ion combinations, a single crystal structure of one compound is not a good representation of the chemistry of the entire class of salts which melt below 100 °C and would be analogous to considering carbon tetrachloride as a model system for all known molecular solvents.

The realization that hexafluorophosphate counterions can indeed generate HF under the right conditions helped bring a dose of reality back to the field, although (as the authors point out), not without a clueless backlash that decided, for a while, that all ionic liquids were therefore intrinsically toxic and corrosive. The impression one gets is that the field has settled down, and that its practitioners are more closely limited to people who know what they are talking about, rather than having quite so many who are doing it because it's hot and publishable. And that's a good thing.

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

More on the GSK Shanghai Scandal

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The accusations of data fabrication at GlaxoSmithKline's China research site are quite real. That's what we get from the latest developments in the case, as reported by BioCentury, Pharmalot, and the news section at Nature Medicine. Jingwu Zang, lead author on the disputed paper and former head of the Shanghai research site, has been dismissed from the company. Other employees are on administrative leave while an investigation proceeds, and GSK has said it has begun the process of retracting the paper itself.

As for what's wrong with the paper in question, BioCentury Extra has this:

GSK said data in a paper published in January 2010 in Nature Medicine on the role of interleukin-7 (IL-7) in autoimmune disease characterized data as the results of experiments conducted with blood cells of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients "when, in fact, the data reported were either the results of experiments conducted at R&D China with normal (healthy donor) samples or cannot be documented at all, suggesting that they well may have been fabricated."

Pharmalot and others also report that GSK is asking all the authors of the paper to sign documents to agree that it be retracted, which is standard procedure at the Nature Publishing Group. If there's disagreement among them, the situation gets trickier, but we'll see what happens.

The biggest questions are unanswered, though, and we're not likely to hear about them except in rumors and leaks. How, for one thing, did this happen in the first place? On whose initiative were results faked? Who was supposed to check up on these results, and was there anything that could have been done to catch this problem earlier? Even more worrying - and you can bet that plenty of people inside GSK are thinking this, too - how many more things have been faked as well? You'd hope that this was an isolated incident, but if someone is willing to whip up a batch of lies like this, they might well be willing to do much more besides.

The involvement of the head of the entire operation (Jingwu Zang) is particularly troubling. Sometimes, in such cases, it turns out that the person at the top just had their name on the paper, but didn't really participate much or even know what was going on. But he's the only person so far in this mess who's been outright fired, which suggests that something larger has happened. We're not going to hear much about it, but you can bet there are some rather worried and upset people digging through this inside GlaxoSmithKline. There had better be.

Comments (30) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

June 7, 2013

Mutato Nomine De Te Fabula Narratur

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Reader may remember the sudden demise of, under threats of legal action. Its author, Paul Brookes, had a steady stream of material pointing out what very much seemed to be altered and duplicated figures in many scientific publications.

Now comes word that the Brazilian researcher (Rai Curi) whose legal threats led to that shutdown has corrected yet another one of his publications. That Retraction Watch link has the details, but I wanted to highlight the corrections involved:

After the publication of this manuscript we observed mistakes in Figures 3A, 4A, and 6A. The representative images related to pAkt (Figure 3A), mTOR total (Figure 4A), and MuRF-1 total (Figure 6A) have been revised. Please note the original raw blots are now provided with the revised Figures as part of this Correction.
In Figure 3A, pAkt panel, the C and CS bands had been duplicated.
In Figure 4A, the bands were re-arranged compared to the original blot.
In Figure 6A, the band for group D was incorrect.

The remaining Figures, results and conclusions are the same as originally reported in the article. The authors apologize for these errors and refer readers to the corrected Figures 3A, 4A, and 6A provided in this Correction.

So I'm certainly glad that Prof. Curi went after a web site that looks for rearranged blots and altered gels. We wouldn't want any of that around. Would we, now.

Comments (32) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

Five Minutes With Any Journal Article You Want?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The literature access service DeepDyve has made an intriguing announcement of a new service they're offering for non-subscribers of scientific journals. For free, you can have access to the full text. . .for five minutes.

Here's more from the Information Culture blog at Scientific American. Obviously, five minutes is not enough to actually read a journal article, but it probably is enough to decide if you really want to pay to see the thing for real. (And I might note, for chemists and biologists, that five minutes is probably enough time to check a procedure in the experimental section). To that end, it's worth noting that many journals do not seem to put their Supplementary Information files behind their paywalls, and thorough experimental details seem more and more to be showing up in those, rather than the main text.

Note: DeepDyve has access to Elsevier, Wiley, and Royal Society of Chemistry journals, among many others. Nature is in there, but not ScienceBut appears to be no Journal of Biological Chemistry, to pick a heavy hitter on the bio end. And for the less-common chemistry needs, there appears to be no access to Heterocycles or the Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry, and no Phosphorus, Sulfur, although many other out-of-the-way journals do show up. Update: note also that the American Chemical Society does not seem to be a participant at all. . .

But for people without journal access, this could be the best of a number of not-so-good options. I'll give it a try myself next time I run into some reference in a journal that my own institution doesn't subscribe to, and see how it goes. Thoughts and experiences welcome in the comments. . .

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

June 6, 2013

Research Fraud at GSK Shanghai?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: the story continues to develop. The scientist mentioned below, Jingwu Zang has been dismissed from GSK, and others are under investigation. The paper itself is in the process of being retracted. More here.

This is quite bad. Reports have been circulating that GlaxoSmithKline is investigating the scientists (and the results) behind this 2010 paper in Nature Medicine.

That first link from Pharmalot mentions this thread at the Chinese site, and similar stuff has been showing up elsewhere. The online speculation is about Jingwu Zang (sometimes appearing as Zhang, the more common transliteration of the name), who was the lead author on the paper. Various postings (from the same person?) claim that Zang has been let go from GSK, and the Biocentury link in the first paragraph says that mail to his corresponding address bounces back.

The paper is (was?) on IL-7's role in autoimmune disease, a perfectly good topic for a drug company research group to be investigating, of course. But now we're going to have to watch to see if any retraction comes out of this - GSK doesn't have to comment on their hiring (and firing) decisions, but I hope that they wouldn't let a fraudulent Nature Medicine paper stand. That's the really disturbing thing about this situation; I'll see if I can explain what I mean.

A critic from outside the drug industry might say "So what? You people publish shady junk all the time? What's another truth-stretching paper, more or less?" Now, I resent implications like that, but at the same time, there have indeed been instances of nasty publication behavior (ghostwriting, etc.), which I deplore. But those things have been driving by the desire to increase sales of approved drugs. They come from overzealous marketing departments clawing for share, trying to get physicians to write for the company's drug over the other choices.

But the further back you go from the elbow-throwing front lines of the market, the less of that stuff you should see. The paper under scrutiny is early-stage research; it could have come from any good lab (academic or industrial) studying T-cell behavior, multiple sclerosis, or autoimmune mechanisms. Frankly, most of the shady stuff (and retractions) in this kind of work come from academia: the viciously competitive front lines of their market are publications in prestigious journals (like Nature Medicine), which directly bear on funding and tenure decisions. Drug companies have an incentive to stretch the truth about how wonderful their current drug is, not about what their scientists have discovered about biochemistry and cell biology. That doesn't bring in any money.

But what a publication like that does bring in, perhaps, is internal prestige. If you're trying to show what a big deal your particular branch of the company is, and what high-quality work they do, this would be one good way to do it. Keep in mind, publications like this are not the primary goal of people in the drug business; it's not like academia. The job of a drug company research group is to increase the number of drugs the company finds, and publishing in a good journal really doesn't have much to do with that. This publication, though, is a way of telling everyone else - other drug companies, other academic and industrial scientists, other departments and higher-ups at GSK, who may or may not know much about immunology per se, that GSK's Shanghai labs do good enough work to get it into Nature Medicine.

And while we're talking about this, let's talk about another widely-held belief about pharma research branches in China. There have, of course, been a number of these opened over the last five or ten years. And there are a lot of good scientists in China, and there are a lot of research topics that are relevant to the needs of a big drug company, so why not? But it's also widely assumed - although this is certainly not written down anywhere - that the Chinese government very much encourages big foreign companies to start such operations in China itself. If you lend your company's internationally known name to an operation in Shanghai (or wherever), if you invest in getting that site going, if you hire a big group of Chinese nationals to work there and manage things. . .well, the Chinese authorities are just going to like you more. Aren't they? And while being liked by the authorities is never a bad thing in any country in the world, particularly in a heavily regulated industry like pharmaceuticals, it is a particularly good thing in some of them.

This is an unfortunate situation. I believe very strongly in a government of laws, not of men - appropriately enough for where I work, that phrase was written by John Adams into the Constitution of Massachusetts. It's an ideal very difficult to realize, particularly since both Massachusetts and the rest of the world are stocked with human beings, but ideals are supposed to be difficult to realize. I understand that personal connections matter all over the world, and that this is by no means always a bad thing. But the bigger and broader the issues, the more important should be the rule of law.

The particular problem of multinational Chinese research institutes, which this current scandal can only worsen, is that too many people can assume that they've been built mainly to satisfy the Chinese government. They suffer, in other words, from the curse of affirmative action (and other such preference programs): the ever-present suspicion that once merit and ability are made secondary, that all bets are off. (This online debate at The Economist does a good job of airing out such concerns). In other words, the government of China could well end up accomplishing the exact reverse of what it's presumably trying to do: instead of elevating Chinese research (and researchers), it could be damaging the reputations of both.

Comments (58) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

June 3, 2013

The Current Kudzu of Chemistry?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Chemistry, like any other human-run endeavor, goes through cycles and fads. At one point in the late 1970s, it seemed as if half the synthetic organic chemists in the world had made cis-jasmone. Later on, a good chunk of them switched to triquinane synthesis. More recently, ionic liquids were all over the literature for a while, and while it's not like they've disappeared, they're past their publishing peak (which might be a good thing for the field).

So what's the kudzu of chemistry these days? One of my colleagues swears that you can apparently get anything published these days that has to do with a BODIPY ligand, and looking at my RSS journal feeds, I don't think I have enough data to refute him. There are still an awful lot of nanostructure papers, but I think that it's a bit harder, compared to a few years ago, to just publish whatever you trip over in that field. The rows of glowing fluorescent vials might just have eased off a tiny bit (unless, of course, that's a BODIPY compound doing the fluorescing!) Any other nominations? What are we seeing way too much of?

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

May 10, 2013

Why Not Share More Bioactivity Data?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The ChEMBL database of compounds has been including bioactivity data for some time, and the next version of it is slated to have even more. There are a lot of numbers out in the open literature that can be collected, and a lot of numbers inside academic labs. But if you want to tap the deepest sources of small-molecule biological activity data, you have to look to the drug industry. We generate vast heaps of such; it's the driveshaft of the whole discovery effort.

But sharing such data is a very sticky issue. No one's going to talk about their active projects, of course, but companies are reluctant to open the books even to long-dead efforts. The upside is seen as small, and the downside (though unlikely) is seen as potentially large. Here's a post from the ChEMBL blog that talks about the problem:

. . .So, what would your answer be if someone asked you if you consider it to be a good idea if they would deposit some of their unpublished bioactivity data in ChEMBL? My guess is that you would be all in favour of this idea. 'Go for it', you might even say. On the other hand, if the same person would ask you what you think of the idea to deposit some of ‘your bioactivity data’ in ChEMBL the situation might be completely different.

First and foremost you might respond that there is no such bioactivity data that you could share. Well let’s see about that later. What other barriers are there? If we cut to the chase then there is one consideration that (at least in my experience) comes up regularly and this is the question: 'What’s in it for me?' Did you ask yourself the same question? If you did and you were thinking about ‘instant gratification’ I haven’t got a lot to offer. Sorry, to disappoint you. However, since when is science about ‘instant gratification’? If we would all start to share the bioactivity data that we can share (and yes, there is data that we can share but don’t) instead of keeping it locked up in our databases or spreadsheets this would make a huge difference to all of us. So far the main and almost exclusive way of sharing bioactivity data is through publications but this is (at least in my view) far too limited. In order to start to change this (at least a little bit) the concept of ChEMBL supplementary bioactivity data has been introduced (as part of the efforts of the Open PHACTS project,

There's more on this in an article in Future Medicinal Chemistry. Basically, if an assay has been described in an open scientific publication, the data generated through it qualifies for deposit in ChEMBL. No one's asking for companies to throw open their books, but even when details of a finished (or abandoned) project are published, there are often many more data points generated than ever get included in the manuscript. Why not give them a home?

I get the impression, though, that GSK is the only organization so far that's been willing to give this a try. So I wanted to give it some publicity as well, since there are surely many people who aren't aware of the effort at all, and might be willing to help out. I don't expect that data sharing on this level is going to lead to any immediate breakthroughs, of course, but even though assay numbers like this have a small chance of helping someone, they have a zero chance of helping if they're stuck in the digital equivalent of someone's desk drawer.

What can be shared, should be. And there's surely a lot more that falls into that category than we're used to thinking.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

May 8, 2013

Total Synthesis in Print

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Over at the Baran group's "Open Flask" blog, there's a post on the number of total synthesis papers that show up in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. I'm reproducing one of the figures below, the percentage of JACS papers with the phrase "total synthesis" in their title.
You can see that the heights of the early 1980s have never been reached again, and that post-2000 there has been a marked drought. As the post notes, JACS seems to have begun publishing many more papers in total around that time (anyone notice this or know anything about it?), and it appears that they certainly didn't fill the new pages with total synthesis. 2013, though, already looks like an outlier, and it's only May.

My own feelings about total synthesis are a matter of record, and have been for some time, if anyone cares. So I'm not that surprised to see the trend in this chart, if trend it is.

But that said, it would be worth running the same analysis on a few other likely journal titles. Has the absolute number of total synthesis papers gone down? Or have they merely migrated (except for the really exceptional ones) to the lower-impact journals? Do fewer papers put the phrase "Total synthesis of. . ." in their titles as compared to years ago? Those are a few of the confounding variables I can think of, and there are probably more. But I think, overall, that the statement "JACS doesn't publish nearly as much total synthesis as it used to" seems to be absolutely correct. Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or some of each?

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

May 7, 2013

One Case of Plagiarism Down. Two Zillion to Go.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You may remember this case from Chemistry - A European Journal earlier this year, where a paper appeared whose text was largely copy-pasted from a previous JACS paper from another lab. This one has finally been pulled; Retraction Watch has the details.

The most interesting part is that statement "The authors regret this approach", which I don't recall ever seeing in a situation like this. The comments at Retraction Watch build on this, and are quite interesting. There are many countries (and cultures) where it's considered acceptable (or at least a venial sin) to lift passages verbatim from other English-language papers when you're publishing in that language. I can see the attraction - I would hate to have to deliver a scientific manuscript in German, for example, which is the closest thing I have to a second language.

But I still wouldn't do it by copying and pasting big hunks of text, either. Reasons for resorting to that range from wanting to be absolutely sure that things are being expressed correctly in ones third or fourth language, all the way to "Isn't that how it's supposed to be done?" The latter situation obtains in parts of Asia, where apparently there's an emphasis in some schools on verbatim transcription of authoritative sources. There's an interesting cite to Yu Hua's China in Ten Words, where one of those ten words is "copycat" (shanzhai):

As a product of China’s uneven development, the copycat phenomenon has as many negative implications as it has positive aspects. The moral bankruptcy and confusion of right and wrong in China today, for example, and vivid expression in copycatting. As the copycat concept has gained acceptance, plagiarism, piracy, burlesque, parody, slander, and other actions originally seen as vulgar or illegal have been given a reason to exist; and in social psychology and public opinion they have gradually acquired respectability. No wonder that “copycat” has become one of the words most commonly used in China today. All of this serves to demonstrate the truth of the old Chinese saying: “The soil decides the crop, and the vine shapes the gourd.”

Four years ago I saw a pirated edition of [my novel] Brothers for sale on the pedestrian bridge that crosses the street outside my apartment; it was lying there in a stack of other pirated books. When the vendor noticed me running my eyes over his stock, he handed me a copy of my novel, recommending it as a good read. A quick flip through and I could tell at once that it was pirated. “No, it’s not a pirated edition,” he corrected me earnestly. “It’s a copycat.”

This tendency isn't a good fit with a lot of things, but it especially doesn't work out so well with scientific publication. I haven't seen it stated in so many words, but a key assumption is that every scientific paper is supposed to be different. If you take the time to read a new paper, you should learn something new and you should see something that you haven't seen before. It might be trivial, it might well be useless, but it should be at least slightly different from any other paper you've read or could find.

Now, as the Retraction Watch comments mention, some of these plagiarism cases are examples of "templating", where original (or sort of original) work was done, but the presentation of it was borrowed from an existing paper. That's not as bad as faking up results completely, of course, but you still have to wonder about the value of your work if you can lift big swaths of someone else's paper to describe it. Even when the manuscript itself has been written fresh from the ground up, there's plenty of stuff out in the literature like this. Someone gets an interesting reaction with a biphenyl and a zinc catalyst, and before you know it, there are all these quickie communications where someone else says "Hey, we got that with a napthyl", or "Hey, we got that with a boron halide catalyst". Technically, yes, these are different, but we're in the land of least publishable units now, where the salami is sliced so thinly that you can read a newspaper through it.

So the authors regret this approach, do they? So does everyone else.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

April 30, 2013

Is Glyphosate Poisoning Everyone?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've had a few people send along this article, on the possible toxicological effects of the herbicide glyphosate, wondering what I make of it as a medicinal chemist. It's getting a lot of play in some venues, particularly the news-from-Mother-Nature outlets. After spending some time reading this paper over, and looking through the literature, I've come to a conclusion: it is, unfortunately, a load of crap.

The authors believe that glyphosate is responsible for pretty much every chronic illness in humans, and a list of such is recited several times during the course of the long, rambling manuscript. Their thesis is that the compound is an inhibitor of the metabolizing CYP enzymes, of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, and of sulfate transport. But the evidence given for these assertions, and their connection with disease, while it might look alarming and convincing to someone who has never done research or read a scientific paper, is a spiderweb of "might", "could", "is possibly", "associated with", and so on. The minute you look at the actual evidence, things disappear.

Here's an example - let's go right to the central thesis that glyphosate inhibits CYP enzymes in the liver. Here's a quote from the paper itself:

A study conducted in 1998 demonstrated that glyphosate inhibits cytochrome P450 enzymes in plants [116]. CYP71s are a class of CYP enzymes which play a role in detoxification of benzene compounds. An inhibitory effect on CYP71B1l extracted from the plant, Thlaspi arvensae, was demonstrated through an experiment involving a reconstituted system containing E. coli bacterial membranes expressing a fusion protein of CYP71B fused with a cytochrome P450 reductase. The fusion protein was assayed for activity level in hydrolyzing a benzo(a)pyrene, in the presence of various concentrations of glyphosate. At 15 microM concentration of glyphosate, enzyme activity was reduced by a factor of four, and by 35 microM concentration enzyme activity was completely eliminated. The mechanism of inhibition involved binding of the nitrogen group in glyphosate to the haem pocket in the enzyme.
A more compelling study demonstrating an effect in mammals as well as in plants involved giving rats glyphosate intragastrically for two weeks [117]. A decrease in the hepatic level of cytochrome P450 activity was observed. As we will see later, CYP enzymes play many important roles in the liver. It is plausible that glyphosate could serve as a source for carcinogenic nitrosamine exposure in humans, leading to hepatic carcinoma. N-nitrosylation of glyphosate occurs in soils treated with sodium nitrite [118], and plant uptake of the nitrosylated product has been demonstrated [119]. Preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the liver of female Wistar rats exposed to carcinogenic nitrosamines showed reduced levels of several CYP enzymes involved with detoxification of xenobiotics, including NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase and various glutathione transferases [120]. Hence this becomes a plausible mechanism by which glyphosate might reduce the bioavailability of CYP enzymes in the liver.
Glyphosate is an organophosphate. Inhibition of CYP enzyme activity in human hepatic cells is a well-established property of organophosphates commonly used as pesticides [121]. In [122], it was demonstrated that organophosphates upregulate the nuclear receptor, constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), a key regulator of CYP activity. This resulted in increased synthesis of CYP2 mRNA, which they proposed may be a compensation for inhibition of CYP enzyme activity by the toxin. CYP2 plays an important role in detoxifying xenobiotics [123].

Now, that presumably sounds extremely detailed and impressive if you don't know any toxicology. What you wouldn't know from reading through all of it is that their reference 121 actually tested glyphosate against human CYP enzymes. In fact, you wouldn't know that anyone has ever actually done such an experiment, because all the evidence adduced in the paper is indirect - this species does that, so humans might do this, and this might be that, because this other thing over here has been shown that it could be something else. But the direct evidence is available, and is not cited - in fact, it's explicitly ignored. Reference 121 showed that glyphosate was inactive against all human CYP isoforms except 2C9, where it had in IC50 of 3.7 micromolar. You would also not know from this new paper that there is no way that ingested glyphosate could possibly reach levels in humans to inhibit CYP2C9 at that potency.

I'm not going to spend more time demolishing every point this way; this one is representative. This paper is a tissue of assertions and allegations, a tendentious brief for the prosecution that never should have been published in such a form in any scientific journal. Ah, but it's published in the online journal Entropy, from the MDPI people. And what on earth does this subject have to do with entropy, you may well ask? The authors managed to work that into the abstract, saying that glyphosate's alleged effects are an example of "exogenous semiotic entropy". And what the hell is that, you may well ask? Why, it's a made-up phrase making its first appearance, that's what it is.

But really, all you need to know is that MDPI is the same family of "journals" that published the (in)famous Andrulis "Gyres are the key to everything!" paper. And then made all kinds of implausible noises about layers of peer review afterwards. No, this is one of the real problems with sleazy "open-access" journals. They give the whole idea of open-access publishing a black eye, and they open the floodgates to whatever ridiculous crap comes in, which then gets "peer reviewed" and "published" in an "actual scientific journal", where it can fool the credulous and mislead the uninformed.

Comments (130) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Toxicology

April 26, 2013

Research Fraud, From A Master Fraud Artist

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A couple of years back, I wrote about the egregious research fraud case of Diederick Stapel. Here's an extraordinary follow-up in the New York Times Magazine, which will give you the shivers. Here, try this part out:

In one experiment conducted with undergraduates recruited from his class, Stapel asked subjects to rate their individual attractiveness after they were flashed an image of either an attractive female face or a very unattractive one. The hypothesis was that subjects exposed to the attractive image would — through an automatic comparison — rate themselves as less attractive than subjects exposed to the other image.

The experiment — and others like it — didn’t give Stapel the desired results, he said. He had the choice of abandoning the work or redoing the experiment. But he had already spent a lot of time on the research and was convinced his hypothesis was valid. “I said — you know what, I am going to create the data set,” he told me. . .

. . .Doing the analysis, Stapel at first ended up getting a bigger difference between the two conditions than was ideal. He went back and tweaked the numbers again. It took a few hours of trial and error, spread out over a few days, to get the data just right.

He said he felt both terrible and relieved. The results were published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2004. “I realized — hey, we can do this,” he told me.

And that's just what he did, for the next several years, leading to scores of publications and presentations on things he had just made up. In light of that Nature editorial statement I mentioned yesterday, this part seems worth thinking on:

. . . The field of psychology was indicted, too, with a finding that Stapel’s fraud went undetected for so long because of “a general culture of careless, selective and uncritical handling of research and data.” If Stapel was solely to blame for making stuff up, the report stated, his peers, journal editors and reviewers of the field’s top journals were to blame for letting him get away with it. The committees identified several practices as “sloppy science” — misuse of statistics, ignoring of data that do not conform to a desired hypothesis and the pursuit of a compelling story no matter how scientifically unsupported it may be.

The adjective “sloppy” seems charitable. . .

It may well be. The temptation of spicing up the results is always there, in any branch of science, and it's our responsibility to resist it. That means not only resisting the opportunities to fool others, it means resisting fooling ourselves, too, because who would know better what we'd really like to hear? Reporting only the time that the idea worked, not the other times when it didn't. Finding ways to explain away the data that would invalidate your hypothesis, but giving the shaky stuff in your favor the benefit of the doubt. N-of-1 experiments taken as facts. No, not many people will go as far as Diederick Stapel (or could, even if they wanted to - he was quite talented at fakery). Unfortunately, things go on all the time that might differ from him in degree, but not in kind.

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

April 25, 2013

Towards Better Papers, With Real Results in Them

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This has to be a good thing. From the latest issue of Nature comes news of an initiative to generate more reproducible papers:

From next month, Nature and the Nature research journals will introduce editorial measures to address the problem by improving the consistency and quality of reporting in life-sciences articles. To ease the interpretation and improve the reliability of published results we will more systematically ensure that key methodological details are reported, and we will give more space to methods sections. We will examine statistics more closely and encourage authors to be transparent, for example by including their raw data. . .

. . .We recognize that there is no single way to conduct an experimental study. Exploratory investigations cannot be done with the same level of statistical rigour as hypothesis-testing studies. Few academic laboratories have the means to perform the level of validation required, for example, to translate a finding from the laboratory to the clinic. However, that should not stand in the way of a full report of how a study was designed, conducted and analysed that will allow reviewers and readers to adequately interpret and build on the results.

I hope that Science, the Cell journals at Elsevier, and other other leading outlets for such results will follow through with something similar. In this time of online supplementary info and basically unlimited storage ability, there's no reason not to disclose as much information as possible in a scientific publication. And the emphasis on statistical rigor and possible sources of error is just what's needed as well. Let's see who follows suit first, and congratulate them. And let's see who fails to respond, and treat them appropriately, too.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 8, 2013

Scientific Posters, Heads on Platters, and Lawsuits

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Yep, these all tie together. Have a look at this post at Retraction Watch for the details. It's about Colin Purrington, who has a web site on designing posters for conferences. I hadn't seen it before, but it's attained quite a bit of popularity (as it should; it seems to be full of sound advice). Purrington himself has put a lot of work into it, and has decided to protect his copyright.

That means that you have to police these things. I do a little of that myself, when I come across cheapo content-scraping blog sites that are just ripping off my posts, one after the other. What's silly about that is that I almost always grant permission to reprint things if someone goes to the trouble of asking. Colin Purrington seems to have had his hands full with people helping themselves to his work, and the latest example was from the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research. He sent them a please-take-this-down notice, and his notices apparently lean towards the colorful. It included a request for the head, on a platter, of whoever it was that decided to rip him off without attribution. He did offer to pay for shipping.

That didn't go over too well. He's received one of those the-sky-shall-fall-upon-you letters from CPBR's expensive lawyers, quoting copyright law to him and accusing him of taking his information from them. (There are archives of Purrington's material going back to 1997, so that should be fun to dispose of). And he was also informed that the staff took his head/platter request as a physical threat, worth contacting authorities about if repeated.

I'm sure there will be more to this story. But so far, I think that we can conclude that no matter how expensive your legal counsel, you're going to have to pay them even more if you expect them to exhibit a sense of humor.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 1, 2013

Fake Journals - But They'd Like Real Money

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wish that this were an April Fool's entry - and a number of scientists would like for that to have been the case, too. Nature reports that at least two journals (Archives des Sciences from Geneva and Wulfenia, a botany journal from Austria) have had their names hijacked by scam artists. Neither journal really had a web presence, so some enterprising sleazeball(s) decided to give each of them a convincing one. They were convincing enough to fool Thomson Reuters for months, and enough to get an unnamed number of authors to think that they'd published papers - after, I should add, sending publication fees to banks in Armenia. That last detail might (or should) have caused some worry, but who would have imagined a top-to-bottom counterfeit journal operation?

The journal "sites" even include editorial board members, some of whom seem to be fictitious, and some of whom are very much not (and were very much not aware that their names were being used). So if you're looking for evidence of how profitable scientific publishing can be, look no further: it's valuable enough to fake.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

March 29, 2013

The Price of Publishing

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So, how much does it cost to publish a scientific paper, anyway? I'm not only talking about how much it costs you. That varies from journal to journal, and from type of journal to type of journal. One aspect of most open-access publishing models is that the author defrays editorial costs. (Which model is, of course, open to abuse by the sleazy). How much does it cost the publishers themselves, and how much do they make on it? There's an excellent overview at Nature that tries to put some real numbers on these questions:

Data from the consulting firm Outsell in Burlingame, California, suggest that the science-publishing industry generated $9.4 billion in revenue in 2011 and published around 1.8 million English-language articles — an average revenue per article of roughly $5,000. Analysts estimate profit margins at 20–30% for the industry, so the average cost to the publisher of producing an article is likely to be around $3,500–4,000.

In case you were wondering why we have so many journals. And if you're still wondering, for some reason, try these numbers on:

Scientists pondering why some publishers run more expensive outfits than others often point to profit margins. Reliable numbers are hard to come by: Wiley, for example, used to report 40% in profits from its science, technology and mathematics (STM) publishing division before tax, but its 2013 accounts noted that allocating to science publishing a proportion of 'shared services' — costs of distribution, technology, building rents and electricity rates — would halve the reported profits. Elsevier's reported margins are 37%, but financial analysts estimate them at 40–50% for the STM publishing division before tax. (Nature says that it will not disclose information on margins.) Profits can be made on the open-access side too: Hindawi made 50% profit on the articles it published last year. . .

Might I add that scientific publishing, for all the upheavals in it, is probably a slightly less risky bet than drug discovery? I keep planning to do a big post on pharmaceutical profit margins - and when I do, it's going to sound like an accounting seminar - and this makes me want to move it closer to the top of the list.

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 25, 2013

Advertising in the Supplementary Information?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a publication concern I'd never come across before. A reader sends word that an ACS journal asked him and his co-authors to remove the names of vendors and manufacturers in their Supporting Information, over concerns that this might be seen as some form of advertising. I think they were specifically thinking of whether the authors might have had academic discounts, etc., that influenced their selection of reagents and equipment.

But while I can see that point, I also think it's important to name suppliers. Any experienced chemist knows that a palladium catalyst from one supplier may well not be the same as one from another supplier, for example (unpaid, unsolicited endorsement: stick with Strem). To pick another issue, HPLC columns come in as many varieties as there are manufacturers - how are you supposed to honestly list your experimental details if you can't say whose columns you used? I don't see how you can have a complete writeup without these details, and I think that this outweighs the concerns about discounts.

My correspondent suggests a compromise: list all the brands, but also state whether any discounts were received. Has anyone else run into this issue?

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 14, 2013

Scientists and Google Reader's Demise

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I suspect that many people follow this blog through its RSS feed. And I feel sure that many readers here follow the current scientific literature that way. Journals are updated constantly, and that's the most concentrated way to get all the new information in one place for flipping through. (No more "new journal table" in the library, is there?)

Well, as you've probably heard, the site that many of us have been using to do all this is closing. Google Reader is to be shut down on July 1. Problems had been apparent for some time now, but this still took me by surprise. And now the search is on for a replacement.

Feedly is apparently trying to clone the service on their own, so that's a possibility. And The Old Reader seems to be an effort to recreate the service as well, going back to some sharing functionality that Google stripped out a while back in the interest of promoting Google+. I'll be evaluating these and others.

What I already know is this: many RSS-based services seem to be colorful-picture-tile things (like Flipboard), and for the chemical literature, they're of no use to me. I am feeling more like a dinosaur every time I say this, but I don't own a tablet (or not yet), and I wish that web sites would find a way to deliver their content both ways: in concentrated blasts of scrolling info for people using a more conventional desktop (or who just like it that way) and in big, flippy, roomy, tablet-screen-sized chunks for those who like it that way instead. One size doesn't fit all.

And that's where Google Reader will be missed, unless someone else can step up. The scientific literature needs a tool like this - we have hundreds and hundreds of new articles coming along all the time, and while scrolling through them in RSS isn't ideal, it's a lot better than any other solution I've come across. Looking at the various comments around the web about Reader's demise, I see that it's hard-core information nerds that are mourning it most - well, if scientists don't fit that description, they should. We're industrial consumers of information, and we need industrial-strength tools.

Update: here's the best list of alternatives I've seen so far.

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 6, 2013

Anonymity, Fakery, et al.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wanted to link to this piece at C&E News on the whole question of anonymity when it comes to comments on the chemical literature. This was brought on by the advent of Blog Syn, but it applied before that, and will continue to apply to other situations.

Its author, Fredrik von Kieseritzky, also calls for synthetic details to make it back into the body of papers, rathe than being relegated to the Supporting Information (which is never as carefully refereed as the manuscript itself). That would be a good thing, but I despair of it happening, at least until the major journals break down and admit that their page count restrictions for submissions are, in large part, relics of the days when everyone read them in print. (They serve another useful function, thought, which is getting people to tighten up their writing. "There wasn't enough time to make it shorter" is a real phenomenon).

But the rest of the commentary grew out of this piece by Rich Apodaca, whose morning it is around here. He wonders about the use of pseudonyms in science, where author recognition has long been a big motivating factor. von Kieseritzky's take is that he can see why people go anonymous (and Rich lists some very plausible reasons, too), but that he's never regretted using his own name online.

That goes for me, too. The topic of anonymity has come up here several times over the years: in chem-blogging, and in peer review of publications and grants. I'm glad that I've used my real name over the years on this blog (although it hasn't always been a smooth ride), but I also think that anonymity is a necessary option, although it certainly can be abused.

That opinion is not shared by the (pseudonymous) author of this piece in the Journal of Cell Science. It's a bit of dystopian what-if, an agitated response to the (now taken down) Science Fraud site. "Mole VIII" relates how some people (an extremely small percentage) did indeed fake scientific papers, and how this embittered other people who had been unable to make the careers in science that they wished to. So they started web sites where they cried "Fake!" about papers of all kinds, which forced the authors to spend all their time defending themselves. Many of them were driven out of doing science, whereupon they turned to exposing their former colleagues as the next best thing. And then, in one generation, science was done - stopped forever, in a hurricane of finger-pointing and snide remarks.

What a load. For one thing, I think that fakery, while not rampant, is more widespread than many people think. And even if it isn't, I think that legitimate results stand up to challenges of this sort, while the shady ones collapse at a push. Furthermore, I find the whole cycle-of-bitterness conceit ridiculous. A look back at the history of science will show that accusations of fakery and bad faith have been with us forever, and often in much more vitriolic form than today.

One problem might be that the author is a bit too academic. Try this part:

Soon, there were very few scientists left. And then fewer. Public confidence for publicly funded research disappeared. The only research that was done any more was kept secret and in the corporations. And while this gave us many new package designs for the sale of established drugs, the actual idea of ‘doing science’, of making discoveries to share with a community of interested and devoted researchers, dwindled, and finally, vanished.

Yep, that's about the size of it - package designs. I try to stay alert to threats to the scientific endeavor, and I try not to take it for granted. But I'm willing to put my real name on the opinion that the author of this stuff is being foolish.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

Open Access For ACS Articles?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Rich Apodaca investigates something that I didn't know, either: that the ACS provides the corresponding authors of papers with links to their articles, which (1) allow for fifty free downloads during the first year after publication, and (2) allow for unlimited free downloads after that. I thought about that for a while, and couldn't remember any examples of such a link, not that I'd noticed, at any rate.

Apodaca's having trouble reducing it to practice, too. He has been trying to get such a link for one of his own papers in J. Med. Chem., and . . .well, his post will tell you about all the places he's looked so far. Let's just say that the ACS does not make it obvious where a corresponding author is supposed to obtain such a URL. Has anyone out there tried this, and has anyone had any success?

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 26, 2013

Phil Baran at Blog Syn

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I linked recently to the latest reaction check at Blog Syn, benzylic oxidation by IBX. Now Prof. Baran (a co-author on the original paper, from his Nicoloau days) has written See Arr Oh with a detailed repeat of the experiment. He gets it to work, so I think it's fair to say that (1) the reaction is doable, but (2) it's not as easy to reproduce right out of the box as it might be.

I'd like to congratulate him for responding like this. The whole idea of publicly rechecking literature reactions is still fairly new, and (as the comments here have shown), there's a wide range of opinion on it. Getting a detailed, prompt, and civil response from the Baran lab is the best outcome, I think. After all, the point of a published procedure - the point of science - is reproducibility. The IBX reaction is now better known than it was, the details that could make it hard to run are now there for people who want to try it, and Prof. Baran's already high reputation as a scientist actually goes up a bit among the people who've been following this story.

Public reproducibility is an idea whose time, I think, has come, and Blog Syn is only one part of it. When you think about the increasingly well-known problems with reproducing big new biological discoveries, things that could lead to tens and hundreds of millions being spent on clinical research, reproducing organic chemistry reactions shouldn't be controversial at all. As they say to novelists, if you're afraid of bad reviews, there's only one solution: don't show anyone your book.

Comments (59) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

February 22, 2013

What If the Journal Disappears?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Hmm, here's a question I hadn't considered. What happens when an online-only journal quits publishing and (apparently) deletes its archives? That's what seems to have happened with the "Journal of Advances in Developmental Research".

Now, to a first approximation, the loss of many of the papers in this journal will not, in all likelihood, be much of a setback. Here is (was?) its stated focus:

The Journal of Advances in Developmental Research is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal that publishes research articles, general articles, research communications, review article and abstracts of theses from the fields of science, social sciences, sports science, humanities, medical, education, engineering, technology, biotechnology, home science, computer, history, arts and other fields which participates in overall development of society.

It provides a platform to discuss current and future trends of research and their role in development of society.

Now, that doesn't sound like anything anyone would want to read. But as long as your check cleared, you could publish in it - it was one of those bottom-of-the-barrel predatory publishing venues. What happens now, though? If there was something worthwhile in any of those papers, we'll never have any way of knowing, because they're all gone. Can (or should) the authors resubmit the papers somewhere else where they can be seen?

Here, for reference are Jeffrey Beall's current criteria for a predatory publisher. One of them is that they "(Have) no policies or practices for digital preservation". Although these guys seem to have had a policy, if you count "wipe the hard drive" as a policy.

Tip via Ivan Oransky and Jeffrey Beall on Twitter.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 21, 2013

An Incentive For Hype

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's an article illustrating what goes into high-profile journal publications, and why you should always read past the title and the abstract. Björn Brembs noticed this paper coming out in Current Biology on fruit fly receptors and behavior, whose abstract claims that "blocking synaptic output from octopamine neurons inverts the valence assigned to CO2 and elicits an aversive response in flight". As Brembs puts it:

We currently have a few projects in our lab that target these octopamine neurons, so this was a potentially very important finding. It was my postdoc, Julien Colomb, who spotted the problem with this statement first. In fact, if it wasn't for Julien, I might have never looked at the data myself, as I know the technique and I know and trust the lab the paper was from. I probably would just have laid the contents of the abstract to my memory and cited the paper where appropriate, as the results confirmed our data and those in the literature (a clear case of confirmation bias on my part).

When you look harder, you find that yes, the genetically manipulated flied do seem averse to carbon dioxide plumes. But when you check the control experiments, you find that the two transgenes added to the flies (independent of the change to the octopamine system that's the subject of the paper) both decrease the tropism for CO2. So there's really no way of knowing what the effect of both of them might be, octopamine signaling or not, and you might well suspect that the two of them together could hose up the carbon dioxide response without invoking the receptor pathways at all.

As Brembs says, though, the authors aren't trying to hide this. It's in the body of their paper. Abstract be damned, the paper itself states:

"We note that the Tdc2-GAL4/+ driver line does not spend a significantly greater amount of time in the CO2 plume by comparison to air, but this line, as well as the UAS-TNT/+ parent line, spends significantly more time in the CO2 plume in comparison to their progeny. Therefore, this experimental result cannot be fully attributable to the genetic background."

No, not fully attributable at all, especially if the progeny show some sort of additive effect of the two transgenes. Of course, if you water down your conclusions too much, you might not get the paper into as good a journal as you'd like. I'll let Brembs sum up:

To make this unambiguously clear: I can't find any misconduct whatsoever in this paper, only clever marketing of the sort that occurs in almost every 'top-journal' paper these days and is definitely common practice. On the contrary, this is exactly the behavior incentivized by the current system, it's what the system demands, so this is what we get. It's precisely this kind of marketing we refer to in our manuscript, that is selected for in the current evolution of the scientific community. If you don't do it, you'll end up unemployed. It's what we do to stay alive.

If there's anyone out there who thinks that this doesn't go on in the chemistry literature, my advice is to please look around you a bit. This sort of thing goes on all the time, and I'd guess that most of us automatically dial down the statements in paper titles and abstracts as we read them, without even realizing any more that we're doing so. But in a case like this (and there are many others), even that process will still let erroneous conclusions into your head. And we all have enough of those already.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 19, 2013

The Wages of Copy-Pasting

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A few weeks ago I mentioned this situation regarding work by Prof. Xi Yan. Two recent papers seem to have been substantially copy-pasted from earlier work published by completely different groups. Now See Arr Oh has some details on what happens to you when you have the nerve to do that in a journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry: why, you have to publish a note regretting that you didn't cite the paper you copied from, that's what. "The authors apologize for this oversight."

There, that should square things up. Right? See Arr Oh is not very happy about this response, and I don't blame him for a minute. The RSC editors seem to be ignoring the word-for-word aspect of a substantial part of the new paper; it really is a paste job, and you're not supposed to do that. And the only problem they have is that the paper being stolen from wasn't cited? Oversight, my various body parts.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

More From Blog Syn

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wanted to mention that there are two more entries up on Blog Syn: one of them covering this paper on alkenylation of pyridines. (It's sort of like a Heck reaction, only you don't have to have an iodo or triflate on the pyridine; it just goes right into the CH bond). The short answer: the reaction works, but there are variables that seem crucial for its success that were under-reported in the original paper (and have been supplied, in part, by responses from the original author to the Blog Syn post). Anyone thinking about running this reaction definitely needs to be aware of this information.

The latest is a re-evaluation of a older paper on the use of IBX to (among many other things) oxidize arylmethane centers. It's notable for a couple of reasons: it's been claimed that this particular reaction completely fails across multiple substrates, and the reaction itself is from the Nicolau lab (with Phil Baran as a co-author). Here's the current literature situation:

A day in the library can save you a week in the lab, so let’s examine this paper’s impact using SciFinder: it's been cited 179 times from 2002-2013. Using the “Get Reactions" tool, coupled with SciFinder’s convenient new “Group by Transformation” feature, we identified 54 reactions from the citing articles that can be classified as “Oxidations of Arylmethanes to Aldehydes/Ketones" (the original reaction's designation). Of these 54 reactions, only four (4) use the conditions reported in this paper, and all four of those come from one article: Binder, J. T.; Kirsch, S. F. Org. Lett. 2006, 8, 2151–2153, which describes IBX as “an excellent reagent for the selective oxidation to generate synthetically useful 5-formylpyrroles.” Kirsch's yields range from 53-79% for relatively complex substrates, not too shabby.

I'll send you over to Blog Syn for the further details, but let's just say that not many NMR peaks are being observed around 10 ppm. Phil Baran himself makes an appearance with more details about his recollection of the work (to his credit). Several issues remain, well, unresolved. (If any readers here have ever tried the reaction, or have experience with IBX in general, I'm sure comments would be very welcome over there as well).

Comments (73) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

February 8, 2013

All Those Drug-Likeness Papers: A Bit Too Neat to be True?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a fascinating paper out on the concept of "drug-likeness" that I think every medicinal chemist should have a look at. It would be hard to count the number of publications on this topic over the last ten years or so, but what if we've been kidding ourselves about some of the main points?

The big concept in this area is, of course, Lipinski criteria, or Rule of Five. Here's what the authors, Peter Kenny and Carlos Montanari of the University of São Paulo, have to say:

No discussion of drug-likeness would be complete without reference to the influential Rule of 5 (Ro5) which is essentially a statement of property distributions for compounds taken into Phase II clinical trials. The focus of Ro5 is oral absorption and the rule neither quantifies the risks of failure associated with non-compliance nor provides guidance as to how sub-optimal characteristics of compliant compounds might be improved. It also raises a number of questions. What is the physicochemical basis of Ro50s asymmetry with respect to hydrogen bond donors and acceptors? Why is calculated octanol/water partition coefficient (ClogP) used to specify Ro50s low polarity limit when the high polarity cut off is defined in terms of numbers of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors? It is possible that these characteristics reflect the relative inability of the octanol/water partitioning system to ‘see’ donors (Fig. 1) and the likelihood that acceptors (especially as defined for Ro5) are more common than donors in pharmaceutically-relevant compounds. The importance of Ro5 is that it raised awareness across the pharmaceutical industry about the relevance of physico- chemical properties. The wide acceptance of Ro5 provided other researchers with an incentive to publish analyses of their own data and those who have followed the drug discovery literature over the last decade or so will have become aware of a publication genre that can be described as ‘retrospective data analysis of large proprietary data sets’ or, more succinctly, as ‘Ro5 envy’.

There, fellow med-chemists, doesn't this already sound like something you want to read? Thought so. Here, have some more:

Despite widespread belief that control of fundamental physicochemical properties is important in pharmaceutical design, the correlations between these and ADMET properties may not actually be as strong as is often assumed. The mere existence of a trend is of no interest in drug discovery and strengths of trends must be known if decisions are to be accurately described as data-driven. Although data analysts frequently tout the statistical significance of the trends that their analysis has revealed, weak trends can be statistically significant without being remotely interesting. We might be confident that the coin that lands heads up for 51 % of a billion throws is biased but this knowledge provides little comfort for the person charged with predicting the result of the next throw. Weak trends can be beaten and when powered by enough data, even the feeblest of trends acquires statistical significance.

So, where are the authors going with all this entertaining invective? (Not that there's anything wrong with that; I'm the last person to complain). They're worried that the transformations that primary drug property data have undergone in the literature have tended to exaggerate the correlations between these properties and the endpoints that we care about. The end result is pernicious:

Correlation inflation becomes an issue when the results of data analysis are used to make real decisions. To restrict values of properties such as lipophilicity more stringently than is justified by trends in the data is to deny one’s own drug-hunting teams room to maneuver while yielding the initiative to hungrier, more agile competitors.

They illustrate this by reference to synthetic data sets, showing how one can get rather different impressions depending on how the numbers are handled along the way. Representing sets of empirical points by using their average values, for example, can cause the final correlations to appear more robust than they really are. That, the authors say, is just what happened in this study from 2006 ("Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs?) and in this one from 2007 ("The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry"). The complaint is that showing a correlation between cLogP and median compound promiscuity does not imply that there is one between cLogP and compound promiscuity per se. And the authors note that the two papers manage to come to opposite conclusions about the effect of molecular weight, which does make one wonder. The "Escape from flatland" paper from 2009 and the "ADMET rules of thumb" paper from 2008 (mentioned here) also come in for criticism on this point - binning averaged data from a large continuous set and then treated those as real objects for statistic analysis. Ones conclusions depend strongly on how many bins one uses. Here's a specific take on that last paper:

The end point of the G2008 analysis is ‘‘a set of simple interpretable ADMET rules of thumb’’ and it is instructive to examine these more closely. Two classifications (ClogP<4 and MW<400 Da; ClogP>4 or MW>400 Da) were created and these were combined with the four ionization state classifications to define eight classes of compound. Each combination of ADMET property and compound class was labeled according to whether the mean value of the ADMET property was lower than, higher than or not significantly different from the average for all compounds. Although the rules of thumb are indeed simple, it is not clear how useful they are in drug discovery. Firstly, the rules only say whether or not differences are significant and not how large they are. Secondly, the rules are irrelevant if the compounds of interest are all in the same class. Thirdly, the rules predict abrupt changes in ADMET properties going from one class to another. For example, the rules predict significantly different aqueous solubility for two neutral compounds with MW of 399 and 401 Da, provided that their ClogP values do not exceed 4. It is instructive to consider how the rules might have differed had values of logP and MW of 5 and 500 Da (or 3 and 300 Da) had been used to define them instead of 4 and 400 Da.

These problems also occur in graphical representations of all these data, as you'd imagine, and the authors show several of these that they object to. A particular example is this paper from 2010 ("Getting physical in drug discovery"). Three data sets, whose correlations in their primary data do not vary significantly, generate very different looking bar charts. And that leads to this comment:

Both the MR2009 and HY2010 studies note the simplicity of the relationships that the analysis has revealed. Given that drug discovery would appear to be anything but simple, the simplicity of a drug-likeness model could actually be taken as evidence for its irrelevance to drug discovery. The number of aromatic rings in a molecule can be reduced by eliminating rings or by eliminating aromaticity and the two cases appear to be treated as equivalent in both the MR2009 and HY2010 studies. Using the mnemonic suggested in MR2009 one might expect to make a compound more developable by replacing a benzene ring with cyclohexadiene or benzoquinone.

The authors wind up by emphasizing that they're not saying that things like lipophilicity, aromaticity, molecular weight and so on are unimportant - far from it. What they're saying, though, is that we need to be aware of how strong these correlations really are so that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that we're addressing our problems, when we really aren't. We might want to stop looking for huge, universally applicable sets of rules and take what we can get in smaller, local data sets within a given series of compounds. The paper ends with a set of recommendations for authors and editors - among them, always making primary data sets part of the supplementary material, not relying on purely graphical representations to make statistical points, and a number of more stringent criteria for evaluating data that have been partitioned into bins. They say that they hope that their paper "stimulates debate", and I think it should do just that. It's certainly given me a lot of things to think about!

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | Drug Development | In Silico | The Scientific Literature

February 4, 2013

A Word We Didn't Know We Needed

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've written here about the strange-sounding conferences that keep sending out invitations to all and sundry. They tend to be in provincial Chinese cities, have grandiose names like the "First International Summit Meeting of Advanced Medical Science", and feature so many sections, sessions, tracks, and breakouts that you wonder if anyone attends who isn't giving a talk. And you get invitations to submit invited talks in fields you've hardly even touched on in your career; that's another reliable sign.

Well, I've had one this morning whose title really rises to the top of the list. I present to you the "1st Annual Symposium of Drug Designology". No, I did not make that up - if I had, I wouldn't tell anyone, believe me. And I'm not about to provide a link to the conference site. If you want more, I'm willing to bet that a search for "drug designology" will yield only highly relevant hits, since I'm not aware of that phrase ever appearing in English until this morning. Here's hoping it submerges again.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 23, 2013

Coincidence, No Doubt. Well, Some Doubt.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Has anyone happened to read this paper, from 2009, or this one, from this year? Well, Shawn Burdette of WPI has, and he noticed that (to a significant extent) they're the same paper. Prof. Valerie Pierre of Minnesota, author of the first paper, is reportedly not too amused, and I don't blame her. But hey, the 2013 authors did at least cite her paper. . .in reference 14d. So at least there's that.

Update: but wait, there's more!

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

January 16, 2013

Blog Syn: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's something I've been following for the last couple of weeks in the chemical blogging world, and now it's up on its own site: "Blog Syn", an initiative of the well-known chemblogger See Arr Oh. The idea here is to take interesting new reactions that appear in the literature, and. . .well, see if they actually work. (A radical concept, I know, but stick with me here).

The first example is this recent paper in JACS, which shows an unusual iron-sulfur reaction that ends up generating a benz-azole directly from an active methyl group in one pot. There are now three repeats of the reaction, and the verdict (so far) is that it works, but not quite as well as hoped for. You probably have to be careful to exclude oxygen (the paper itself just says "under argon"), and the yield of the test reaction is not has high as reported. As you'll see, there are spectral data, sources of reagents, photos of experimental setups - everything you'd need to see how this reaction is actually being (re)run.

I like this idea very much, and I look forward to seeing it applied to new reactions as they appear (and I hope to contribute the occasional run myself, when possible). They're accepting nominations for the next reaction to test, so if you have something you've seen that you're wondering about, put it into the hopper.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

January 4, 2013

Science Fraud and Legal Action

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There have been occasional links here in the comments to, although I'm not sure if I ever linked them directly or not. Note the use of the past tense: as detailed here at Retraction Watch, the site has suddenly gone (mostly) dark under threats of legal action. Nothing appears on the Wayback Machine at, either.

I'm not all that surprised. I've said unkind things about people and organizations on this blog, but Science Fraud seemed to have that pedal pushed down to the floor the entire time. And while I've had threats of legal action, I think that I've managed to stay just this side of defamation, although with some people that's hard to do. (I mean for that to be interpreted both ways - both that it's hard to avoid saying nasty things about some people, but also that in such cases, it's hard to think of things that are nasty enough to be defamatory). But which side of that line Paul Brookes, the now-public U. Rochester scientist behind the Science Fraud site, has landed on is still up for debate. More as this story develops. . .

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

An Article That Shows What Med-Chem Is Like?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a query that I received the other day that I thought I'd pass on to the readership: "What's the one journal article or book chapter that you'd assign to a class to show them what medicinal chemistry and drug discovery are really like?"

That's a tricky one, because (as in many fields) the "what it's really like" aspect doesn't always translate to the printed page. But I'd be interested in seeing some suggestions.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

December 21, 2012

The Last Thing a Professor Wants to Hear

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This can't be good. A retraction in PNAS on some RNA-driven cell death research from a lab at Caltech:

Anomalous experimental results observed by multiple members of the Pierce lab during follow-on studies raised concerns of possible research misconduct. An investigation committee of faculty at the California Institute of Technology indicated in its final report on this matter that the preponderance of the evidence and the reasons detailed in the report established that the first author falsified and misrepresented data published in this paper. An investigation at the United States Office of Research Integrity is ongoing.

As that link from Retraction Watch notes, the first author himself was not one of the signees of that retraction statement - as one might well think - and he now appears to be living in London. He appears to have left quite a mess behind in Pasadena.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

December 14, 2012

The Merck Index

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So the Royal Society of Chemistry has bought the Merck Index, and plans to try to raise its profile, especially online. I wish them luck, but I'm not sure how well that's going to work out. I have a copy, but it's an old one that I got for free when a library turned over its stock. There are years that go by that its pages stay undisturbed.

I think that the chemical substance entries on Wikipedia, among other things, have moved into the space once occupied by reference works like this. Now, it's true that many people would rather point to a standard reference work like the Merck Index than to Wikipedia, and that may well be the market right there. Is there, or can there be, more of one? An advertiser-supported online substance reference might have a niche, but it would have been a bigger niche if it had been colonized ten years ago.

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 16, 2012

Part Eleven? Really?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

And here's another item, sent in by a reader, who noted this publication in Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters. I have no problem with the work at all, and certainly no problem with the people who did it (some of whom I know), but Part Eleven? I'm trying to figure out why this would be sliced quite so thinly - the only thing that comes to mind is to scatter a wide group of co-authors across several publications, so as to give everyone something on their CV. But how much does a multipart BOMCL count for - heck, while we're on the subject, how much does most any publication count for in today's hiring environment? Update: note that this is not one of those multiyear series things - most of these appear to be in press right now.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

Your Press Release Has Already Been Written

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Alan Dove has it right here:

In a groundbreaking new study, scientists at Some University have discovered that a single molecule may drive people to perform that complex behavior we’ve all observed. Though other researchers consider the results of the small, poorly structured experiment misleading, a well-written press release ensures that their criticisms will be restricted to brief quotes buried near the bottoms of most news stories on the work, if they’re included at all.

There's more at the link, and believe me, you've seen releases that conform to this template so perfectly, it's eerie. I'm reminded of this famous BBC news report. . .

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | The Scientific Literature

Hexacyclinol Round-Up

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

For those wanting a timeline of the whole hexacyclinol business, with links to the articles, blogs, and commentary that's surrounded it, allow me to recommend Carmen Drahl's "History of the Hexacyclinol Hoo-Hah". (And no, the whole thing is not written in alliteration; for that, you'll be wanting this).

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

November 14, 2012

Hexacyclinol Retracted. It Only Took Six Years.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Via Chemjobber's Twitter feed comes news of this: the formal retraction of the LaClair hexacyclinol synthesis.

The retraction has been agreed due to lack of sufficient Supporting Information. In particular, the lack of experimental procedures and characterization data for the synthetic intermediates as well as copies of salient NMR spectra prevents validation of the synthetic claims. The author acknowledges this shortcoming and its potential impact on the community

Potential? After six years? There were people taking their first undergraduate organic course when this controversy hit who are now thinking about how to start tying together their PhD dissertations. It seems that Angewandte Chemie is very loath to go the full-retraction route (there haven't been many), but that retraction notice doesn't bring up anything that wasn't apparent after the first ten minutes of reading the paper.

Update: Wavefunction isn't too impressed, either.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

November 6, 2012

How Much Fraud, As Opposed to Plain Old Error?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

How many retracted papers, would you say, are due to honest error rather than fraud and other misconduct? We now can put a number on that, thanks to this paper. The authors have looked over all 2,047 paper listed on PubMed from the life sciences as "retracted" (better them than me), with the earliest going back to 1977. The authors are careful to point out that this is absolutely an underestimate, though, with several examples of papers which are known to be fraudulent but have never been officially retracted. But they find that:

. . .only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%).

They blame incomplete and outright misleading retraction notices for confusing the issue about these numbers. (I've always liked, in a teeth-gritting way, the idea of a dubious retraction notice - it gives these things the full surround-sound sensory experience). Many published retractions that blame things like "flaws in the data analysis" turn out, on follow-up, to have been the subject of investigations that strongly suggested fraud.

Other trends: the US, Germany, Japan, and China accounted for the majority of papers pulled because of fraud, but China and India each stand out a bit in a crowded plagiarism field (China also stand out in the "duplicate publication" category). Higher-impact journals were significantly more likely to have papers retracted because of outright fraud rather than plagiarism (a result that makes sense, and squares with my own experience as a reader). And retractions have definitely been increasing over time, probably with several factors operating at once (greater incentives to fraud, coupled with increased detection). The paper sums up this way:

Given that most scientific work is publicly funded and that retractions because of misconduct undermine science and its impact on society, the surge of retractions suggests a need to reevaluate the incentives driving this phenomenon. We have previously argued that increased retractions and ethical breaches may result, at least in part, from the incentive system of science, which is based on a winner-takes-all economics that confers disproportionate rewards to winners in the form of grants, jobs, and prizes at a time of research funding scarcity.

Fixing this, though, will not be easy. There are recommendations for an increased focus on ethics training (which will do nothing at all, I think, to stop the sort of person who would do these sorts of things). But they also call for some standardization of retraction notices, with minimum standards of disclosure, which sounds like a good idea, and also for trying to find some way to reward scientists that doesn't involve publishing a ton of papers. I like that idea, too, although the implementation will be tricky. . .

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

November 1, 2012

Hype, Malpractice, and Scientific Misconduct in Organic Synthesis

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

That's the word-for-word title of a provocative article by Rolf Carlson and Tomas Hudlicky in Helvetica Chimica Acta. That journal's usually not quite this exciting, but it is proud of its reputation for compound characterization and experimental accuracy. That probably helped this manuscript find a home there, where it's part of a Festschrift issue in honor of Dieter Seebach's 75th birthday.

The authors don't hold back much (and Hudlicky has not been shyabout these issues, either, as some readers will know). So, for the three categories of malfeasance described in the title, the first (hype) includes the overblown titling of many papers:

As long as the foolish use of various metrics continues there is little hope of return to integrity. Young scientists entering academia and competing for resources and recognition are easily infected with the mantra of importance of
publishing in 'high-impact journals' and, therefore, strive to make their work as noticeable as possible by employing excess hype.

It is the reader, not the author, of papers describing synthetic method who should evaluate its merits. Therefore, self-promoting words like 'novel', 'new', 'efficient', 'simple', 'high-yielding', 'versatile', 'optimum' should not be used in the title of the paper if such qualities are not covered by the actual content of the paper.

It also includes the inflation of reaction yields (see that link in the second paragraph above for more on that topic). This is another one that's going to be hard to fix:

Unfortunately, the community has chosen and continues to choose the yield values in submitted manuscripts as a measure of overall quality and/or utility of the report. This, of course, encourages the 􏰛'adjustment' in the values in order to avoid critique. An additional problem in the reported values is the fact that synthesis is performed on small scales, thanks to advances in NMR and other techniques available for structure determination. On milligram scales it is extremely difficult to accurately determine weight and content of a sample, given the equipment available in typical academic laboratory.

The second category, malpractice, is sloppy work, but not outright fraud:

Malpractice, as explained above, is usually not deliberate and derives primarily from ignorance or professional incompetence. The most frequent cases involve improper experimental protocols, improper methods used in characterization of compounds, and the lack of correct citations to previous work.

For example, the authors point out that very, very rarely are any new synthetic methods given a proper optimization. One-variable one-at-a-time changes are worthwhile, but they're not sufficient to explore a reaction manifold, not when these changes can interact with each other. As process chemists in industry know, the only way to explore such landscapes is with techniques such as Design of Experiments (DoE), which try to find out what factors in a multivariate system produce the greatest change in results. Here's an example; the process chemistry literature furnishes many more.

And finally, you have outright scientific misconduct - fraud, poaching of ideas from grant applications and the like, plagiarism in publications, etc. It's hard to get a handle on these - they seem to be increasing, but the techniques to find and expose them are also getting better. Over time, thought, these techniques might just have the effect of making fraud more sophisticated; that would be in line with human behavior as I understand it, and with selection pressure as well. The motives for such acts are with us still, and do not seem to be abating much, so I tend to think that determined miscreants will find ways to do what they want to do.

Thoughts? Some of this paper's points could be put in the "grumblings about the good old days" category, but I think that a lot of it is accurate. I'm not sure how good the old days were, myself, since they were also filled with human beings, but the pressures found today do seem to be bringing on a lot of behaviors we could do without.

Comments (71) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

October 31, 2012

Oops. We Didn't Mean to Publish That.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's an interesting situation, courtesy of Retraction Watch - trying to pull back a paper because it disclosed something that was supposed to be the subject of your patent. Say the authors of the paper in the Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology:

We regret to inform that the published paper included a few parts that disclosed confidential information which should have been protected under patent law. We admit that the request for retraction is due to the indiscretion of the authors, and confirmed that editorial committee of KJPP have not conducted any fault in publishing the paper.

I would think that if you've disclosed, you've disclosed, so this will all come down to timing. Shouldn't matter much whether the paper has been retracted or not. . .

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature

October 24, 2012

Too Many Med Chem Journals?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The recent discussions on awful molecules in the med-chem literature got me to thinking the other day. There are many more med-chem journals now than there used to be. Back in the day, you had the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, and that was that. Then in the early 1990s came Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry and Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters. Now we've got ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters and MedChemComm and ChemMedChem, among others. (And as we were seeing the other day, there are levels and levels as you move down, ranging from obscure-but-respectable, to just plain obscure, all the way to disreputable crap).

This at a time when industrial medicinal chemistry has been getting cut back. Now, on the other side of the ledger, you have all the folks who are cleaning out the file cabinets for publishable material to have on their C.V.s (and don't think that's not a real force). But in general, I have to wonder if the amount of medicinal chemistry being published from industry hasn't been going down.

Here, then is the question: is there enough decent medicinal chemistry being done to usefully fill all the pages of all these journals? My answer, as you might guess, is "Probably not". But I'd welcome other opinions.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

October 22, 2012

The Absolute Bottom of the Publishing Barrel

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Every so often, you come across scientific journals that you've absolutely, completely never heard of. Back in graduate school (mid-1980s for me), I used to keep track of the weirdest references that came up - Journal of the Siberian Oil Chemist's Society, or Bulletin of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences (1954), which I think you'd have a hard time laying your hands on even in Kentucky. Then there are all the obscure "flag carrier" journals. One that shows up fairly often in searches for odd heterocyclic systems in the Egyptian Journal of Chemistry, but there are others that I have never seen a reference to in nearly 30 years of looking at the chemical literature, such as the Revista Colombiana de Quimica. Europe used to be covered with national chemistry titles, most of which have ceased publication or were merged into Chem. Eur. J. or the like. But some of the newly independent countries were glad to start up their own literature, so you have (for example) the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society.

Now, I have no wish to offend any Serbian readership I may have, but I will not be bringing any unexpected news if I point out that JSCS is not the most prestigious venue available. In the old days, such a title would be full of local papers, and to be sure, there are plenty of manuscripts from Belgrade. But there are also plenty from places like Brazil, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, and (naturally) the further corners of India and China. I suspect that some authors from these countries get to count such papers as having been published in a European scientific journal, as opposed to the less-impactful venues closer to home. There is, for example, an Iranian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, as there is a Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society.

But these days, there's a much larger and fuzzier category of obscure journal, and we have the internet and the idea of open access to thank for them. Well, those and greed. If I had to pick, I'd say that greed is the main factor. I'm talking about scam publishing, the dozens upon dozens of "open access" journals that have sprung up that (1) accept everything, and (2) charge a significant publication fee. That money is supposed to cover the costs of editorial work and open access on publication - and such fees can be completely legitimate, of course. But in the case of these publishers, it's a scam, since there are very, very few costs involved. No one edits these papers to any significant degree, and to a good approximation, no one ever accesses the papers, either. Bandwidth charges are thus held down to manageable levels.

Here's a good resource on these outfits, Beall's List of Predatory Open-Access Publishers. Jeffrey Beall of the University of Colorado-Denver has compiled a list of shady operations, most of which are characterized by suspiciously vast lists of titles and hefty publication charges. The one publisher on the list that you might have heard of is Bentham Open, the "open-access" arm of Bentham Publishing. I've always considered their regular list of journals to be pretty borderline stuff, although they have published some useful reviews. But Beall characterizes Bentham Open as "a scholarly vanity press", and that seems pretty accurate.

Take, for example, their Open Medicinal Chemistry Journal. It appears to have published two papers so far this year. Last year, it put out a special issue on "Medicinal Chemistry of Novel Anti-Diabetic Drugs", which sounds interesting until you note that there are three papers therein: a leadoff editorial (from an author at the University of the United Arab Emirates), a paper from that editorial writer and several collaborators (four authors, four countries), and still another paper from him and one of the authors of the first paper. Hmm.

Now, the scholarly worth of such things can be debated. They're of little immediate interest, but if the results contained are real, then they are, presumably, tiny bricks in the great edifice of scientific knowledge, and might conceivably be useful to someone, someday. From that standpoint, I don't have much room to criticize them. But since I've said many unkind things about the established scientific publishing houses and their business models, it's only fair that I point out that some of the untraditional ones are just as rapacious. The sorts of "journals" on Beall's list are not even pretending to add anything to the store of human knowledge: they're publication mills, turning anything you want to pay for into a "scientific paper". Some (not all) of the authors may deserve sympathy, by virtue of their obscure, unfunded origins (although they must have enough funds to pay for these papers), but the publishers deserve none at all for taking advantage of them. And when they're not taking advantage of ignorance and/or desperation, then the transaction is a cynical one indeed, reminding me of the old joke from the Soviet Union that went "As long as they pretend to pay me, I'll pretend to work".

Will they really publish anything? Why, yes, they will, as a mathematician proved by submitting a paper full of incoherent gibberish and getting it accepted. He used MathGen, a modified version of the random-paper generator SciGen that I've written about here. You'd think that the institutional address of "University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople" would tip someone off, but there are no P.D.Q. Bach fans in that audience.

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

October 1, 2012

Six Rule of Reproducibility

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Bruce Booth has a look at some rules suggested by Glenn Begley of Amgen, who's been involved in trying to reproduce published data. He's had enough bad experiences in that line (and he's not alone) that he's advocating these standards for evaluating something new and exciting:

1) Were studies blinded?

2) Were all results shown?

3) Were experiments repeated?

4) Were positive and negative controls shown?

5) Were reagents validated?

6) Were the statistical tests appropriate?

Applying these tests would surely scythe down an awful lot of the literature - but a lot of the stuff that would be weeded out would deserve it. I really wonder, for example, how many n=1 experiments make it into print; I'm sure it's far more than anyone would be comfortable with if we knew the truth. As I've mentioned here before, different fields have different comfort levels with what needs to be done to assure reproducibility, but I think that everyone would agree that complex biology experiments need all the backing up that they can get. The systems are just too complex, and there are too many places were things can go silently wrong.

That "Were all results shown" test is a tough one, too. Imagine a synthetic paper where each reaction has a note next to it, like "4/5", to show the number of times the reaction worked out of the total number of times it was tried. There would be a lot of "2/2", which would be fine, and (in total synthesis papers) some "1/1" stuff in the later stages, which readers could take or leave. But wouldn't it be instructive to see the "1/14"s in print? We never will, though. . .

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 20, 2012

Various Links Of Stuff

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Swamped with all sorts of stuff today - when science marches on, you have to make sure that it's not leaving its bootprints on your back. But I do have some interesting links:

The bluest of blue-sky brain research, funded by Paul Allen. Fascinating stuff, on several levels - here's a big publication that came out this week. I find the phenomenon of tech-billionaire funding for things like this, asteroid mining, low-cost orbital access and the like very encouraging. (And of course, the Gates Foundation is doing a lot in more earthbound pursuits).

The Wall Street Journal reveals what is apparently a rather ill-kept secret: most firms funded by venture capital fail. "Most", as in about 3 out of 4. That's a loose definition, though - as the article says, if you're talking total wipeout of capital, then that's about one third of them. If you're talking about failing to see the projected return in the projected time, well, that's over 90%. But it's all about the ones that succeed, just like the drug business.

The Royal Society of Chemistry, in a rather self-congratulatory press release, pledges money to help authors publish their work open-access in RSC journals. The UK government is putting money into this, but no one's sure if it'll be enough.

Do you want to make this compound? No? Neither do I. Especially not when they turn around and stick three more nitro groups onto it.

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | The Central Nervous System | The Scientific Literature

September 14, 2012

Walking Away From the ACS

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a look at the scientific journal situation from the viewpoint of the people who have to shell out the money for institutional subscriptions. This librarian (from SUNY-Potsdam) ended up deciding that the American Chemical Society journal package just cost too much, especially for an institution of her size:

We also learned that their base price and pricing model, when applied to much larger institutions, did not produce the same unsustainable pricing – I cannot provide numbers, as they are marked SUNY Confidential, but I can easily say that what our ARL peers pay for ACS in support of their doctoral programs is, in my estimation, in no way fair or reflective of the usage, FTE, or budgets of those institutions as compared to the pricing offered my institution for my usage, FTE, and budgets. It seems to me that the tiered increases may be fair and be reflective, but the problem lies with the base price underlying their pricing model. That base price is unsustainable for small institutions. And, unfortunately, the ACS sales team is not currently interested in negotiating on that fact. In response to any suggestions of ways that SUNY or campuses might collaborate or negotiate to reach a place where we could sustain our subscriptions – one which might well be applied to other campuses, other consortia by ACS – we were repeatedly told “but that’s not our pricing model.”

Wouldn't want to upset the pricing model, that's for sure. The slow earthquake in scientific publishing continues to rumble on.

Comments (50) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 13, 2012

ENCODE And What It All Means

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You'll have heard about the massive data wave that hit (30 papers!) courtesy of the ENCODE project. That stands for Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, and it's been a multiyear effort to go beyond the bare sequence of human DNA and look for functional elements. We already know that only around 1% of the human sequence is made up of what we can recognize as real, traditional genes: stretches that code for proteins, have start and stop codons, and so on. And it's not like that's so straightforward, either, what with all the introns and whatnot. But that leaves an awful lot of DNA that's traditionally been known by the disparaging name of "junk", and sure it can't just be that - can it?

Some of it does its best to make you think that way, for sure. Transposable elements like Alu sequences, which are repeated relentlessly hundreds of thousands of times throughout the human DNA sequence, must either be junk, inert spacer, or so wildly important that we just can't have too many copies of them. But DNA is three-dimensional (and how), and its winding and unwinding is crucial to gene expression. Surely a good amount of that apparently useless stuff is involved in these processes and other epigenetic phenomena.

And the ENCODE group has indeed discovered a lot of this sort of thing. But as this excellent overview from Brendan Maher at Nature shows, it hasn't discovered quite as many as the headlines might lead you to think. (And neither has it demolished the idea that all the 99% of noncoding DNA is junk, because you can't find anyone who believed that one, either). The figure that's in all the press writeups is that this work has assigned functions for 80% of the human genome, which would be an astonishing figure on several levels. For one thing, it would mean that we'd certainly missed an awful lot before, and for another, it would mean that the genome is a heck of a lot more information-rich than we ever thought it might be.

But neither of those quite seem to be the case. It all depends on what you mean by "functional", and opinions most definitely vary. See this post by Ed Yong for some of the categories. which range out to some pretty broad, inclusive definitions of "function". A better estimate is that maybe 20% of the genome can directly influence gene expression, which is very interesting and useful, but ain't no 80%, either. That Nature post provides a clear summary of the arguments about these figures.

But even that more-solid 20% figure is going to keep us all busy for a long time. Learning how to affect these gene transcription mechanisms is going should be a very important route to new therapies. If you remember all the hype about how the genome was going to unlock cures to everything - well, this is the level we're actually going to have to work at to make anything in that line come true. There's a lot of work to be done, though. Somehow, different genes are expressed at different times, in different people, in response to a huge variety of environmental cues. It's quite a tangle, but in theory, it's a tangle that can be unraveled, and as it does, it's going to provide a lot of potential targets for therapy. Not easy targets, mind you - those are probably gone - but targets nonetheless.

One of the best ways to get a handle on all this work is this very interesting literature experiment at Nature - a portal into the ENCODE project data, organized thematically, and with access to all the papers involved across the different journals. If you're interested in epigenetics at all, this is a fine place to read up on the results of this work. And if you're not, it's still worth exploring to see how the scientific literature might be presented and curated. This approach, it seems to me, potentially adds a great deal of value. Eventually, the PDF-driven looks-like-a-page approach to the literature will go extinct, and something else will replace it. Some of it might look a bit like this.

Note, just for housekeeping purposes - I wrote this post for last Friday, but only realized today that it didn't publish, thus the lack of an entry that day. So here it is, better late, I hope, than never. There's more to say about epigenetics, too, naturally. . .

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

September 6, 2012

Graphical Abstract Tedium

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Scrolling through my journal RSS feeds, a question occurs to me. What's the biggest cliché, the most overused trope in graphic abstracts? My nomination is the "row of glowing vials" to illustrate some new fluorescent/luminescent sensor molecule. Nothing wrong with a row of glowing vials per se, but man, has that image ever been done to death. (I'm just glad that I'm not working on anything of the kind, so I don't have to figure out what to show instead). Your nominations? Just think of what makes you grit your teeth as you glance over the journal table of contents, even before you've read the title of the paper, and you'll have it.

Update: as mentioned in the comments, if you want the TOC graphics that are each. . .special. . .in their own way, then look no further than TOCROFL.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 28, 2012

A Synthetic Retraction

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's an odd retraction in the synthetic chemistry literature. A synthesis of the lundurine alkaloid core from the Martin group at Texas was published last year, and its centerpiece was a double-ring-closing olefin metathesis reaction. (Coincidentally, that reaction was one of the "Black Swan" examples in the paper I blogged about yesterday - the initial reports of it from the 1960s weren't appreciated by the synthetic organic community for many years).

Now the notice says that the paper is being retracted because that RCM reaction is "not reproducible". (The cynical among you will already be wondering when that became a criterion for retraction in the literature - if it works once, it's in, right?)

There are more details at The Heterocyclist, a blog by the well-known synthetic chemist Will Pearson that I've been remiss in not highlighting before now. While you're there, fans of the sorts of chemicals I write about in "Things I Won't Work With" might enjoy this post on the high explosive RDX, and the Michigan chemist (Werner Bachmann) who figured out how to synthesize it on scale during World War II.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

August 27, 2012

Chemistry's Mute Black Swans

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

What's a Black Swan Event in chemistry? Longtime industrial chemist Bill Nugent has a very interesting article in Angewandte Chemie with that theme, and it's well worth a look. He details several examples of things that all organic chemists thought they knew that turned out not to be so, and traces the counterexamples back to their first appearances in the literature. For example, the idea that gold (and gold complexes) were uninteresting catalysts:

I completed my graduate studies with Prof. Jay Kochi at Indiana University in 1976. Although research for my thesis focused on organomercury chemistry, there was an active program on organogold chemistry, and our perspective was typical for its time. Gold was regarded as a lethargic and overweight version of catalytically interesting copper. More- over, in the presence of water, gold(I) complexes have a nasty tendency to disproportionate to gold(III) and colloidal gold(0). Gold, it was thought, could provide insight into the workings of copper catalysis but was simply too inert to serve as a useful catalyst itself. Yet, during the decade after I completed my Ph.D. in 1976 there were tantalizing hints in the literature that this was not the case.

One of these was a high-temperature rearrangement reported in 1976, and there was a 1983 report on gold-catalyzed oxidation of sulfides to sulfoxides. Neither of these got much attention, as the Nugent's own chart of the literature on the subject shows. (I don't pay much attention when someone oxidizes a sulfide, myself). Apparently, though, a few people had reason to know that something was going on:

However, analytical chemists in the gold-mining industry have long harnessed the ability of gold to catalyze the oxidation of certain organic dyes as a means of assaying ore samples. At least one of these reports actually predates the (1983) Natile publication. Significantly, it could be shown that other precious metals do not catalyze the same reactions, the assays are specific for gold. It is safe to say that the synthetic community was not familiar with this report.

I'll bet not. It wasn't until 1998 that a paper appeared that really got people interested, and you can see the effect on that chart. Nugent has a number of other similar examples of chemistry that appeared years before its potential was recognized. Pd-catalyzed C-N bond formation, monodentate asymmetric hydrogenation catalysts, the use of olefin metathesis in organic synthesis, non-aqueous enzyme chemistry, and many others.

So where do the black swans come into all this? Those familiar with Nasim Taleb's book
will recognize the reference.

The phrase “Black Swan event” comes from the writings of the statistician and philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The term derives from a Latin metaphor that for many centuries simply meant something that does not exist. But also implicit in the phrase is the vulnerability of any system of thought to conflicting data. The phrase's underlying logic could be undone by the observation of a single black swan.

In 1697, the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans on the Swan River in Western Australia. Not surprisingly, the phrase underwent a metamorphosis and came to mean a perceived impossibility that might later be disproven. It is in this sense that Taleb employs it. In his view: “What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct an explanation for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.”

Taleb has documented this last point about human nature through historical and psychological evidence. His ideas remain controversial but seem to make a great deal of sense when one attempts to understand the lengthy interludes between the literature antecedents and the disruptive breakthroughs shown. . .At the very least, his ideas represent a heads up as to how we read and mentally process the chemical literature.

I have no doubt that unwarranted assumptions persist in the conventional wisdom of organic synthesis. (Indeed, to believe otherwise would suggest that disruptive break- throughs will no longer occur in the future.) The goal, it would seem, is to recognize such assumptions for what they are and to minimize the time lag between the appearance of Black Swans and the breakthroughs that follow.

One difference between Nugent's examples and Taleb's is the "extreme impact" part. I think that Taleb has in mind events in the financial industry like the real estate collapse of 2007-2008 (recommended reading here
), or the currency events that led to the wipeout of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. The scientific literature works differently. As this paper shows, big events in organic chemistry don't come on as sudden, unexpected waves that sweep everything before them. Our swans are mute. They slip into the water so quietly that no one notices them for years, and they're often small enough that people mistake them for some other bird entirely. Thus the time lag.

How to shorten that? It'll be hard, because a lot of the dark-colored birds you see in the scientific literature aren't amazing black swans; they're crows and grackles. (And closer inspection shows that some of them are engaged in such unusual swan-like behavior because they're floating inertly on their sides). The sheer size of the literature now is another problem - interesting outliers are carried along in a flood tide of stuff that's not quite so interesting. (This paper mentions that very problem, along with a recommendation to still try to browse the literature - rather than only doing targeted searches - because otherwise you'll never see any oddities at all).

Then there's the way that we deal with such things even when we do encounter them. Nugent's recommendation is to think hard about whether you really know as much as you think you do when you try to rationalize away some odd report. (And rationalizing them away is the usual reponse). The conventional wisdom may not be as solid as it appears; you can probably put your foot through it in numerous places with a well-aimed kick. As the paper puts it: "Ultimately, the fact that something has never been done is the flimsiest of evidence that it cannot be done."

That's worth thinking about in terms of medicinal chemistry, as well as organic synthesis. Look, for example, at Rule-Of-Five type criteria. We've had a lot of discussions about these around here (those links are just some of the more recent ones), and I'll freely admit that I've been more in the camp that says "Time and money are fleeting, bias your work towards friendly chemical space". But it's for sure that there are compounds that break all kinds of rules and still work. Maybe more time and money should go into figuring out what it is about those drugs, and whether there are any general lessons we can learn about how to break the rules wisely. It's not that work in this area hasn't been done, but we still have a poor understanding of what's going on.

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | Drug Industry History | The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

August 15, 2012

More On Reproducing Scientific Results: Organic Chemistry Edition

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Yesterday's post on reproducing scientific results got me to thinking about the application of this to organic chemistry. How much of this are we going to see, compared to biology?

Not as much, is my guess. Some of the barriers to reproducibility are too low to bother with, while others are too high. In the "too low" category are many new synthetic method papers. People try these things out, if they look useful at all, and they either work or they don't. Most of the time, you end up finding the limits of the reported method - your substrate failed dismally, but when you look, you realize that you had a basic tertiary amine in your molecule, and none of the examples in the paper have one. Ah-hah.

It's rare that a useful-looking reaction turns out to be completely non-reproducible across multiple structures (although it has happened). Here's a paper from 2000, by one Vincent C. O. Njar, claiming that carbonyl diimidazole reacted with hydroxy groups to give direct N-alkylation of imidazole. Two years later, Walter Fischer from Ciba Specialty Chemicals took this paper apart in detail, showing that it did not work and could not have worked. The products were carbamates instead - not surprising - and the original author should have realized this (as should the referees of the paper).

Then you have total synthesis. And here, the barrier is too high: no one is going to reproduce these things after a certain point. A 48-step synthesis of Shootmenowicene could appear tomorrow, and the odds are overwhelming that no one will ever explore its heights again. There have been total syntheses that have been received with grave doubts (hexacyclinol!), but no one, to the best of my knowledge, has gone back over every step of one of these. The return on the investment of time and money is just too low - which, to be frank, is a sentence that sums up my opinion of a lot of total synthesis work these days.

Where the Reproducibility Initiative could come in handy inside organic chemistry, though, would be for unusual things of wide applicability that are still hard to believe. The famous "NMR chirality" scandal at the University of Bonn in the 1990s would be a good example of this. This was a startling result - that the chirality of organic reactions could be measurably influenced by the handedness of an applied magnetic field - and many people had trouble believing it on physical grounds. They were right, too, because it all turned out to be faked by an individual inside the group, a fact that was only discovered after much effort and embarrassment. Having immediate access to third-party reproducibility testing would have sped things up quite a bit - and perhaps if that access is more widely known, used, and appreciated, we might see fewer bizarre cases like this in general.

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 14, 2012

Reproducing Scientific Results - On Purpose

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

We've spoken several times around here about the problems with reproducing work in the scientific literature. You have to expect some slippage on cutting-edge work, just because it's very complex and is being looked at for the first time. But at the same time, it's that sort of work that we're depending on to advance a field, so when it turns out to be wrong, it causes more damage than something older and more obscure that falls apart.

There's a new effort which is trying to attack the problem directly. Very directly. The Reproducibility Initiative is inviting people to have their work independently confirmed by third-party researchers. You'll be responsible for the costs, but at the end of it, you'll have a certification that your results have been verified. The validation studies themselves will be published in the new PLOS ONE Reproducibility Collection, and several leading publishers have agreed to link the original publications back to this source.

I very much hope that this catches on. The organizers have rounded up an excellent advisory committee, with representatives from academia and industry, both of whom would be well served by more accurate scientific publication. I can especially see this being used when someone is planning to commercialize some new finding - going to the venture capital folks with independent verification will surely count for a lot. Granting agencies should also pay attention, and reward people accordingly.

Here's an article by Carl Zimmer with more on the idea. I'll be keeping a close eye on this myself, and hope to highlight some of the first studies to make it through the process. With any luck, this can become the New Normal for groundbreaking scientific results.

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: General Scientific News | The Scientific Literature

July 19, 2012

Quick Links

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I'm pressed for time this morning, so I wanted to put up a quick link to Adam Feuerstein's thoughts on media embargoes of scientific results (and how they're becoming increasingly useless).

And I also wanted to note this odd bit of news: I'll bet you thought that fluorine, elemental gaseous fluorine, wasn't found in nature. Too reactive, right? But we're all wrong: it's found in tiny cavities in an unusually stinky mineral. And part (or all) of that smell is fluorine itself, which I'll bet that very few people have smelled in the lab. I hope not, anyway.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

July 3, 2012

The Papers In This Journal Are Just So Darn Relevant

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Thomson Reuters is out with their lists of impact factors for journals, and these come with the usual cautions: too much is made of the impact factor in general, and the very fact that the tiniest variations are seized on gleefully by journal publishers should be enough to set off alarms.

This time a record number of journals were taken off the list for excessive self-citation. And as that Nature News article notes, somewhat gleefully, one of the journals had recently been profiled by Thomson Reuters as a "Rising Star". (All that profiling and interviewing has made me wonder in the past, and I'm not surprised at all that this has happened. The company measures the impact factors, promotes them as meaningful, interviews journal editors who have found ways to raise theirs, which makes that important news because the people who sell impact factors say that it's important, and they have the press releases to prove it. I'm standing by my earlier comparison to the Franklin Mint. (And in case you're wondering, the fact that I'm citing my own blog on the topic of self-referentiality has not escaped me).

At any rate, I don't believe that any chemistry journals were on the banned list. The most interesting case was a group of journals that were deliberately citing each other, but I'll freely admit that I'd never heard of any of them, despite their best efforts to rise in the world. If anyone does have any evidence of citation oddities in the chemistry world, though, I'd be happy to help publicize them. . .

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

July 2, 2012

If They Pretend to Read It, He'll Pretend to Write It

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Is this the record? At least 172 faked publications from a Japanese anaesthesiology researcher. He doesn't seem to have been a particularly high-impact person in the field, but that makes you wonder, too. Sitting around all day, making up data for papers that no one reads. . .what a life! I don't how anything on quite this scale could happen in chemistry, but perhaps that's wishful thinking.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

June 20, 2012

The Cream Rises to the Top, But So Does the Pond Scum

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a rather testy letter to the editors of The Lancet about some recent work published there by Novo Nordisk and collaborators.

Both trials produce the same finding. . .Each focuses its main conclusion not on this primary outcome, but on one of several secondary measurements: nocturnal hypoglycaemia in the first paper and overall hypoglycaemia in the second. In both, the difference was of marginal significance and no mention is made of adjustment for multiple testing. These lower hypoglycaemia rates in unblinded studies should be considered, at best, hypothesis generating. At worst they are spurious. . .

The Lancet's reprints are a major source of revenue for the journal, and a major part of drug company marketing. These trials were written and analysed by NovoNordisk statisticians and NovoNordisk-funded professional writers. We applaud their skill, but regret the lack of editorial effort deployed to balance it. . .

"What are editors for?", asks the letter. This brings up something that we all may have to contend with if the scientific publishing model continues to change and erode. The publishers themselves make much of their status as gatekeepers, citing their coordination of the peer review process and their in-house editing. (The counterarguments are that the peer review is being done by free labor, and not always very effectively, and that the quality of the in-house editing varies from "pretty good" to "surely you jest").

These papers are a case in point. What if they are, as the letter writers contend, largely just vehicles for marketing? That sort of thing certainly does happen. Will it happen even more under some new scientific publishing system? You'd have to think that the marketing folks are wondering the same thing, but from the standpoint of a feature rather than a bug.

Marketing, though, would rather have papers to point at that are published in a prestigious journal, which is one reason that letter is being sent to The Lancet. And no matter what sort of publishing model comes along, I don't think that we're ever going to get rid of prestige as a factor, human nature being what it is. (And beyond that, having a stratum of recognizably prestigious journals does have its uses, although its abuses can outweigh them). It is, in fact, the prestige factor that's keeping the current system afloat, as far as I can see.

The only thing I can think of to replace it that wouldn't be as vulnerable to the same abuses would be one where papers float to the top through reader comments and interest. Upvotes, downvotes, number of comments and replies, number of downloads and page views - these might end up as what people point to when they want to show the impact of their papers, along with the traditional measures based on citations in other papers. But while that might avoid some of the current problems, it would be open to new ones, various ways of gaming the system to boost papers beyond where they naturally would end up (and to send rival work down the charts as well?) There's also the problem that the most-discussed papers aren't a perfect proxy for the most important ones. A harder-to-comprehend paper, made that way either through its presentation or through its intrinsic subject matter, will make less headway. And deliberately buzzy, controversial stuff will rise faster and higher, even if it's not so worthwhile on closer inspection.

It's probably impossible to come up with a system that can't be gamed or abused. I won't miss the current one all that much, but we'll have to be careful not to replace it with something worse.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 24, 2012

Publishing Without Consent

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a note on an ugly situation: when a post-doc publishes a paper without the permission of the principal investigator. Now, this is a fairly rare situation, but still not as rare as you might imagine - the article itself has several citations, and it quotes a journal editor who's seen it happen a number of times.

In most of these cases, there seems to be a more fundamental confusion about ownership of data, with publishing as the sequel. People leave a research group with their piles of results, and decide that since it's theirs, that it's time to get it out into the literature with their name on it. But as the article points out, if work is done under NIH funding, then the results belong to the institution, and the grantee/PI is the person who decides when and where things are published. You may, as a grad student or post-doc, feel that the data you worked so hard to generate are rightfully yours, but most of the time that's just not the case.

In industry we have our own disputes, but this isn't one of them. There's rarely any argument about ownership of data: that's all company property, and you sign documents when you're hired that explicitly spell that out. And publication is rarely as bitter a business as it is in academia (where it's the coin of the realm). We argue about whether a particular project is advanced enough (or dead enough, more likely) to be written up for a journal, but these are secondary questions.

Who gets on the patent is a slightly bigger question, but it's not like you get a cut of the profits based on whether your name is on the list. That's as opposed to Germany, where that's exactly what happens, and I've often wondered if we should try that here. That system leads to some elbow-throwing when it comes to inventorship on a hot project, but it also leads to everyone having a clear idea of the legal requirements to be an inventor. Ownership is, naturally, not in dispute at all. Every invention realized at the company is company property, too (those same documents take care of that back when you're hired on).

So while rogue academic publishing is a known phenomenon, rogue industrial patenting isn't. Well, as far as I know it isn't - anyone have an example of someone who tried to get away with it?

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature

May 23, 2012

How Come?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I'm baffled by this abstract. Why would you go to the trouble of putting an unusual group (a ferrocene) on a molecule, and then show that putting it on seems to do little or nothing to the properties and activity of the parent compound? "We put a ferrocene on and it didn't kill the molecule" doesn't seem to be enough grounds for a full J. Med. Chem. paper. Does it?

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 17, 2012

The Breslow Chirality Paper Mess, Resolved

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Just a note: the Breslow origins-of-chirality paper, also known more widely (thanks to some bizarre PR work at the ACS) as the "alien dinosaur" paper, has been withdrawn, and on the correct grounds. The pun in the headline is intended.

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 10, 2012

The UK Goes Open-Access

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

More disruption in the scientific publishing model: the UK government has announced that it will set up an open-access system for papers that are generated through its funding, similar to the system in the US. The details are still being worked out, and the government is still making noises about not "ruining the value provided by academic publishers", but it's that value that's at issue, isn't it?

A statement from Wiley said that "Publishers enable content digitisation, rigorous peer review, strong editorial infrastructure and support and investment in an effective online platform for dissemination." And yes, they do those things. But how well do they do them? And how well do they do them for the prices they charge? I'm glad that these arguments are finally out on the table.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 7, 2012

You're A Peer, Too, You Know

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Over at The Curious Wavefunction, there's a great post looking back at the infamous "negative rate constant" affair (Breslow, Menger, Haim). If you're not familiar with that one, give it a look. I remember this one while it was going on, and in retrospect, you have to imagine what it would have been like if there had been a chemical blog world at the time. It's an extraordinary chapter in chemical (and chemical literature) history.

To that end, there's this opinion piece from yesterday's New York Times. Author Jack Hitt is talking about the tail of comments that now follows any notable article, in any field:

Almost any article worth reading these days generates some version of this long tail of commentary. Depending on whether they are moderated, these comments can range from blistering flameouts to smart factual corrections to full-on challenges to the very heart of an article’s argument. . .

. . .the comments section of any engaging article is almost as necessary a read as the piece itself — if you want to know how insider experts received the article and how those outsiders processed the news (and maybe to enjoy some nasty snark from the trolls).

Should this part of every contemporary article be curated and edited, almost like the piece itself? Should it have a name? Should it be formally linked to the original article or summarized at the top? By now, readers understand that the definitive “copy” of any article is no longer the one on paper but the online copy, precisely because it’s the version that’s been read and mauled and annotated by readers. (If a book isn’t read until it’s written in — as I was always told — then maybe an article is not published until it’s been commented upon.) Writers know this already. The print edition of any article is little more than a trophy version, the equivalent of a diploma or certificate of merit — suitable for framing, not much else.

I think this is exactly what science is about, and exactly what it needs. People should be able to read the latest results, add their opinions and criticisms to them, and those comments in turn should also be available for everyone to see. There's going to be noise in there, but I'll take some noise as the price that gets paid for figuring things out more quickly and more completely than we ever could before. As far as I'm concerned, the "peer" in "peer review" means "Everyone who can read and understand the paper".

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 1, 2012

Flip That Glucose, Please

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Just another nitpicking note: if you're going to publish a paper on glucose conjugates of drugs (aspirin, in this case), you might want to be sure to draw the glucose as the correct enantiomer. I had to do a little head-scratching with this one, since the sugar ring is drawn from a perspective that no carbohydrate chemist would ever use, but as far as I can tell, that's L-glucose instead of D. . .

This is not as big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but it particularly gets to me, as someone who worked with sugars as chiral starting materials for 4 1/2 years. And then, every chemical drawing program extant will draw you the correct stereochemistry. . .

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 27, 2012

Different Worlds: A Last DHFR Paper Thought

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Inspired by a discussion with a colleague, I'm going to take one more crack at the recent discussion here about the J. Med. Chem. DHFR paper. Those of you with an interest in the topic, read on. Those whose interest has waned, or who never had much interest to start with, take heart: other topics are coming.

It's clear that many people were disappointed with my take on this paper, and my handling of the whole issue. Let me state again that I mishandled the biology aspects of this one thoroughly, through carelessness, and I definitely owe this apology to the authors of the paper (and the readers of this site) for that.

Of course, that's not the only arguable thing about the way I handled this one. As I spent paragraphs rambling on about in yesterday's post, there's a chemical aspect to the whole issue as well, and that's what caught my eye to start with. I think one of the things that got me into trouble with this one is two different ways of looking at the world. I'll explain what I mean, and you can judge for yourself if I'm making any sense.

The authors of the paper (and its reviewer who commented here) are interested in D67 dihydrofolate reductase, from a biological/enzymological perspective. From this viewpoint - and it's a perfectly tenable one - the important thing is that D67 DHFR is an unusual and important enzyme, a problem in bacterial resistance, interesting in its own right as a protein with an odd binding site, and for all that, still has no known selective inhibitors. Anything that advances the understanding of the enzyme and points toward a useful inhibitor of it is therefore a good thing, and worth publishing in J. Med. Chem., too.

I come in from a different angle. As someone who's done fragment-based drug discovery and takes a professional interest in it, I'll take a look at any new paper using the technique. In this case, I gave the target much too cursory a look, and filed it as "DHFR, bacterial enzyme, soluble, X-ray structures known". In other words, a perfectly reasonable candidate for FBDD as we know it. Once I'd decided that this was a mainstream application of something I already have experience with, I turned my attention to how the fragment work was done. By doing so, I missed out on the significance of the DHFR enzyme, which means, to people in the first camp, that I whiffed on the most important part of the entire thing. I can understand their frustration as I brushed that off like a small detail and went on to what (to them) were secondary matters.

But here's where my view of the world comes in. As a drug discovery guy, when I read a paper in J. Med. Chem., I'd like to see progress in, well, the medicinal chemistry of the topic. That was the thrust of my blog post yesterday: that I found the med-chem parts of the paper uncompelling, and that the application of fragment-based techniques seemed to me to have gone completely off track. (I havne't mentioned the modeling and X-ray aspects of the paper, as Teddy Z did at Practical Fragments, but I also found those parts adding nothing to the worth of the manuscript as a whoel). The most potent compounds in the paper seem, to me, to be the sort that are very unlikely to lead to anything, and are unlikely to show selectivity in a cellular environment. If the paper's starting fragment hits are real (which is not something that's necessarily been proven, as I mentioned in yesterday's post), then it seems to me that everything interesting and useful about them is being thrown away as the paper goes on. From the other point of view, things are basically the opposite - the paper gets better and better as the compounds get more potent.

But here's where, perhaps, the two viewpoints I spoke of earlier might find something in common. If you believe that the important thing is that selective inhibitors of D67 DHFR have finally been discovered, then you should want these to be as potent and selective as possible, and as useful as possible in a variety of assays. This, I think, is what's in danger of being missed. I think that a fragment-based effort should have been able to deliver much more potent chemical matter than these compounds, with less problematic structures, which are more likely to be useful as tools.

I'll finish up by illustrating the different angles as starkly as I can. The authors of this paper have, in one view of the world, completed the first-ever fragment screen against an important enzyme, discovered the first-ever selective inhibitors of it, and have published these results in a prestigious journal: a success by any standard. From my end, if I were to lead a drug discovery team against the same enzyme, I might well see the same fragment hits the authors did, since I know that some of these are in the collections I use. But if I proceeded in the same fashion they did, prosecuting these hit compounds in the same way, I would, to be completely honest about it, face some very harsh questioning. And if I persevered in the same fashion, came up with the same final compounds, and presented them as the results of my team's work, I would run the serious risk of being fired. Different worlds.

Update: Prof. Pelletier sends the following:

I certainly have been following this with interest, and learning much from it – not just science.

Throughout the week, I have appreciated your civil tone – many thanks. I willingly accept your apology, just as I accept the constructive criticism that will improve our future work. I think your ‘two-worlds’ point of view smacks of truth. The bottom line from my point of view is that I’m open to collaboration with a real fragment library: if anyone is interested in making this better, they should contact me. I’d be delighted to work with more than what can be scavenged from neighbouring labs in an academic setting.

Your bloggers’ response to this come-and-go was fascinating: the process was admired to an extent that surprised me. A number of responders point out that there are currently few occurrences of open exchange on these blogs and – sorry to disappoint hard-core bloggers – it does not endear me to the blogging process. I don’t blog because I can’t stand anonymous, frequently disrespectful and sometimes poorly researched comments. I nonetheless hope that this will open the door to a more transparent blogging process in the long run.

For any who care, I am brave, not at all desperate, and definitely a woman. ; )

If you feel any of this would be of interest for your blog, please feel free to post. Thanks for seeing this through rather than shaking it off.

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | The Scientific Literature

April 26, 2012

Elsevier Picks Up the Pace

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So perhaps I should rethink all those nasty things I've been saying about Elsevier journals. Here's someone who submitted a paper to Nuclear Instruments and Methods on a Friday evening, and got it accepted - with two referee reports, yet - on Monday morning. How is that possible, you say? That's what this author is wondering, too. . .

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 25, 2012

DHFR Inhibitors Revisited: A Word From the Authors (and Reviewers)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The other day, I had some uncomplimentary things to say about a recent J. Med. Chem. paper on fragment-based dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. Well, I know that I don't say these things into a vacuum, by any means, but in this case the lead author has written me about the work, and a reviewer of the paper has showed up in the comments. So perhaps this is a topic worth revisiting?

First, I'll give Prof. Joelle Pelletier of U. Montreal the floor to make the case for the defense. Links added are mine, for background; I take responsibility for those, and I hope they're helpful.

I was informed of your recent blog entitled ‘How do these things get published’. I am corresponding author of that paper. I would like to bring to your attention a crucial point that was incorrectly presented in your analysis: the target enzyme is not that which you think it is, i.e.: it is not a DHFR that is part of ‘a class of enzymes that's been worked on for decades’.

Indeed, it would make no sense to report weak and heavy inhibitors against ‘regular’ DHFRs (known as ‘type I DHFRs’), considering the number of efficient DHFR inhibitors we already know. But this target has no sequence or structural homology with type I DHFRs. It is a completely different protein that offers an alternate path to production of tetrahydrofolate (see top of second page of the article). It has apparently evolved recently, as a bacterial response to trimethoprim being introduced into the environment since the ‘60’s. Because that protein is evolutionarily unrelated to regular DHFRs, it doesn’t bind trimethoprim and is thus intrinsically trimethoprim resistant; it isn’t inhibited by other inhibitors of regular DHFRs either. There have been no efforts to date to inhibit this drug resistance enzyme, despite its increasing prevalence in clinical and veterinary settings, and in food and wastewater (see first page of article). As a result, we know nothing about how to prevent it from providing drug resistance. Our paper is thus the first foray into inhibiting this new target – one which presents both the beauty and the difficulty of complex symmetry.

Regular (type I) DHFRs are monomeric enzymes with an extended active-site cleft. They are chromosomally-encoded in all living cells where they are essential for cellular proliferation. Our target, type II R67 DHFR, is carried on a plasmid, allowing rapid dissemination between bacterial species. It is an unusual homotetrameric, doughnut-style enzyme with the particularity of having a single active site in the doughnut hole. That’s unusual because multimeric enzymes typically have the same number of active sites as they do monomers. The result is that the active site tunnel, shown in Figure 4 a, has 222 symmetry. Thus, the front and back entrances to the active site tunnel are identical. And that’s why designing long symmetrical molecules makes sense: they have the potential of threading through the tunnel, where the symmetry of the inhibitor would match the symmetry of the target. If they don’t string through but fold up into a ‘U”, it still makes sense: the top and bottom of the tunnel are also alike, again allowing a match-up of symmetry. Please note that this symmetry does create a bit of a crystallographer’s nightmare at the center of the tunnel where the axes of symmetry meet; again, it is an unusual system.

You have referred to our ‘small, poorly documented library of fragment compounds’. As for the poor documentation, the point is that we have very little prior information on the ligands of this new target, other than its substrates. We cast as wide a net as we could within a loosely defined chemical class, using the chemicals we have access to. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to a full fragment library, but am open to collaboration.

As a result of extending the fragments, the ligand efficiency does take a beating… so would it have been better not to mention it? No, that would have been dishonest. In addition, it is not a crucial point at this very early stage in discovery: this is a new target, and it IS important to obtain information on tighter binding, even if it comes at the cost of heavier molecules. In no way do we pretend that these molecules are ripe for application; we have presented the first set of crude inhibitors to ‘provide inspiration for the design of the next generation of inhibitors’ (last sentence of the paper).

Your blog is widely read and highly respected. In this case, it appears that your analysis was inaccurate due to a case of mistaken identity. I did appreciate your calm and rational tone, and hope that you will agree that there is redeeming value to the poor ligand efficiency, because of the inherent novelty of this discovery effort. I am appealing to you to reconsider the blog’s content in light of the above information, and respectfully request that you consider revising it.

Well, as for DHFRs, I'm guilty as charged. The bacterial ones really are way off the mammalian ones - it appears that dihydro/tetrahydrofolate metabolism is a problem that's been solved a number of different ways and (as is often the case) the bacteria show all kinds of diversity compared to the rest of the living world. And there really aren't any good D67 DHFR inhibitors out there, not selective ones, anyway, so a molecule of that type would definitely be a very worthwhile tool (as well as a potential antibiotic lead).

But that brings us to the fragments, the chemical matter in the paper. I'm going to stand my my characterization of the fragment library. 100 members is indeed small, and claiming lack of access to a "full fragment collection" doesn't quite cover it. Because of the amount of chemical space that can be covered at these molecular weights, a 200-member library can be significantly more useful than a 100-member one, and so on. (Almost anything is more useful than a 100-member library). There aren't more compounds of fragment size on the shelves at the University of Montreal?

More of a case could be made for libraries this small if they covered chemical space well. Unfortunately, looking over the list of compounds tested (which is indeed in the Supplementary Material), it's not, at first glance, a very good collection. Not at all. There are some serious problems, and in a collection this small, mistakes are magnified. I have to point out, to start with, that compounds #59 and #81 are duplicates, as are compounds #3 and #40, and compounds #7 and #14. (There may be others; I haven't made a complete check).

The collection is heavily biased towards carboxylic acids (which is a problem for several reasons, see below). Nearly half the compounds have a COOH group by my quick count, and it's not a good idea to have any binding motif so heavily represented. I realize that you intentionally biased your screening set, but then, an almost featureless hydrophobic compound like #46 has no business in there. Another problem is that some of the compounds are so small that they're unlikely to be tractable fragment hits - I note succinimide (#102) and propyleneurea (#28) as examples, but there are others. At the other end of the scale, compounds such as the Fmoc derivative #25 are too large (MW 373), and that's not the only offender in the group (nor the only Fmoc derivative). The body of the manuscript mentions the molecular weights of the collections as being from 150 to 250, but there are too many outliers. This isn't a large enough collection for this kind of noise to be in it.

There are a number of reactive compounds in the list, too, and while covalent inhibitors are a very interesting field, this was not mentioned as a focus of your efforts or as a component of the screening set. And even among these, compounds such as carbonyldiimidazole (#26), the isocyanate #82, and disuccinimidylcarbonate (#36) are really pushing it, as far as reactivity and hydrolytic stability. The imine #110 is also very small and likely to have hydrolytic stability problems. Finally, the fragment #101 is HEPES, which is rather odd, since HEPES is the buffer for the enzyme assays. Again, there isn't room for these kinds of mistakes. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone who's ever done fragment screening reviewed this manuscript.

The approach to following up these compounds also still appears inadequate to me. As Dan Erlanson pointed out in a comment to the Practical Fragments post, small carboxylic acids like the ones highlighted are not always legitimate hits. They can, as he says, form aggregates, depending on the assay conditions, and the most straightforward way of testing that is often the addition of a small amount of detergent, if the assay can stand it. The behavior of such compounds is also very pH-dependent, as I've had a chance to see myself on a fragment effort, so you need to make sure that you're as close to physiological conditions as you can get. I actually have seen some of your compounds show up as hits in fragment screening efforts, and they've been sometimes real, sometimes not.

But even if we stipulate that these compounds are actually hits, they need more work than they've been given. The best practice, in most cases when a fragment hit is discovered and confirmed, is to take as many closely related single-atom changes into the assay as possible. Scan a methyl group around the structure, scan a fluoro, make the N-for-C switches - at these molecular weights, these changes can make a big difference, and you may well find an even more ligand-efficient structure to work from.

Now, as for the SAR development that actually was done: I understand the point about the symmetry of the enzyme, and I can see why this led to the idea of making symmetrical dimer-type compounds. But, as you know, this isn't always a good idea. Doing so via flexible alkyl or alkyl ether chains is not a good idea, though, since such compounds will surely pay an entropic penalty in binding.

And here's one of the main things that struck both me and Teddy Z in his post: if the larger compounds were truly taking advantage of the symmetry, their ligand efficiency shouldn't go down. But in this case it does, and steeply. The size of the symmetical inhibitors (and their hydrophobic regions, such as the featureless linking chains, make it unsurprising that this effort found some micromolar activity. Lots of things will no doubt show micromolar activity in such chemical space. The paper notes that it's surprising that the fragment 4c showed no activity when its structural motif was used to build some of the more potent large compounds, but the most likely hypothesis is that this is because the binding modes have nothing to do with each other.

To be fair, compounds 8 and 9 are referred to as "poorly optimized", which is certainly true. But the paper goes on to say that they are starting points to develop potent and selective inhibitors, which they're not. The fragments are starting points, if they're really binding. The large compounds are dead ends. That's why Teddy Z and I have reacted as strongly as we have, because the path this paper takes is (to our eyes) an example of how not to do fragment-based drug discovery.

But still, I have to say that I'm very glad to hear a direct reply to my criticism of this paper. I hope that this exchange has been useful, and that it might be of use for others who read it.

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | Infectious Diseases | The Scientific Literature

Breslow's Chirality Paper: More Than Just Alien Dinosaurs

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: the paper has, for now, been pulled by JACS. More to come, no doubt.

I didn't written anything about the Breslow origins-of-chirality paper that mentioned, as a joking aside, the possibility of intelligent alien dinosaurs. As most readers will know, the ACS publicity office, most cluelessly, decided to make that throwaway line the focus of their press release, and much confusion ensued.

But things have gotten weirder. Stu Cantrill read the Breslow paper, and realized that he'd already read a lot of it before. See these three pictures (1, 2, 3) and realize the extent to which this latest paper was apparently a cut-and-paste job.

I've met Breslow many times (he used to consult for one of my former employers), and I've enjoyed reading much of his work. But this really shouldn't be acceptable - we wouldn't put up with it from some unknown chemist, and we shouldn't put up with it from someone famous. Chembark has an excellent summary of the situation, with recommendations about what the ACS should do next. These range from fixing that idiotic press release, to retracting the paper, to barring Breslow from publishing in JACS for a period.

In retrospect, the alien dinosaurs are becoming my favorite part of the whole paper.

Update: Breslow defends himself to Nature News.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 24, 2012

That's Some Fine Editorial Work There

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since I've mentioned the scientific publication business today, I thought I'd include this story from Retraction Watch as an example of what you're paying for when you pay Elsevier for quality control. When's the last time you saw a paper withdrawn because it "contains no scientific content"? Or noticed that the lead author's email contract address was at the domain ""?

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

Harvard's Had Enough

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Several readers sent along this memo from Harvard's library: they see the current price structure of scientific journals as unsustainable, and they're asking the faculty to help them do something about it.

The Faculty Advisory Council to the Library, representing university faculty in all schools and in consultation with the Harvard Library leadership, reached this conclusion: major periodical subscriptions, especially to electronic journals published by historically key providers, cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable. Doing so would seriously erode collection efforts in many other areas, already compromised.

They're asking faculty members to try to "move prestige" to open-access journals by favoring them for new publications, and in general to do whatever they can to get away from the current scientific publishing model. And that ties in with this post over at the Guardian, saying that not only are the current publishers causing a financial burden, but other burdens that may be even more of a problem:

Research, especially scientific research, thrives in an atmosphere that allows the free exchange of ideas and information: open discussion and debate are essential if the scientific method is to operate properly. Before the arrival of the internet, academic publishers provided a valuable service that was a real benefit to the scientific community. Not any more. . .

. . .But open access isn't just about the end products of research. It's the entire process of scientific enquiry, including the collection and processing of data, scrutiny of the methods used in the analysis, questioning of assumptions, and discussion of alternative interpretations. In particular, it's about access to scientific data.

I believe all data resulting from publicly funded research should be in the public domain, for two reasons. First, it's public money that funds us, so we scientists have a moral responsibility to be as open as possible with the public. Second, the scientific method only works when analyses can be fully scrutinised and, if necessary, replicated by other researchers. In other words, to seek to prevent your data becoming freely available is plain unscientific.

We'll see how far this gets. But this is already the biggest upheaval that I can remember in the scientific literature, and it show no signs of slowing down. . .

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 18, 2012

How Do These Things Get Published?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: I've heard from both the lead author of this paper and one of its reviewers, and I've written a follow-up post on this subject, as well as revising this one where shown below.

I've been saved the trouble of demolishing this J. Med. Chem. paper - the Practical Fragments blog has done it for me. I really hate to say such things, but this appears to be one of the worst papers that journal has published in quite a while.

The authors start out with a small, poorly documented (update: the compounds are, in fact, in the paper's supplementary information, but see the follow-up post) library of fragment compounds. They screen these against dihydrofolate reductase, and get a few possible hits - mind you, there's not much correlation between the numbers and any potency against the enzyme, but these aren't potent compounds, and fragment-level hits don't always perform in high-concentration enzyme assays. But what happens next? The authors string these things together into huge dimeric molecules, apparently because they think that this is a good idea, but they get no data to support this hypothesis at all.

Well, their potency goes from low millimolar to low micromolar, but as Teddy Z at Practical Fragments points out, this actually means taking a terrible beating in ligand efficiency. All that extra molecular weight should buy you a lot more potency than this. There's some hand-waving docking of these structures - which the authors themselves refer to as "poorly optimized" - and some inconclusive attempts at X-ray crystallography, leading to uninterpretable data.

And that's it. That's the paper. This on a class of enzymes that's been worked on for decades, yet. (Update: this characterization is completely wrong on my part - see the follow-up post linked to above for more). Again, I hate to be unkind about this, but I cannot imagine what this is doing in J. Med. Chem., or how it made it through the editorial process. When you submit a scientific manuscript for publication, you open yourself to comments from all comers, and those are mine.

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases | The Scientific Literature

April 13, 2012

More on the Federation of Independent Scientists: Journal Access

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: just to make things clear, this is only one aspect of the whole problem, but perhaps an easier one to tackle. More on the rest of the proposals to come!

Yesterday's post brought in a lot of welcome comment, and I want to follow up on the ideas in it. The first problem I wanted to tackle was journal access for entrepreneurs, the recently unemployed, and small shops. Here are some of the comments from the first post, consolidated:

A better bet would be to negotiate a group agreement with DeepDyve. "You can rent the article and view it at DeepDyve for 24 hours or more" for $1. The catch? No printing- you have to read it online (hence the renting not purchasing model).

Something like that might be necessary, because others pointed out that:

I like the idea of the journal access, HOWEVER, you'll pay handsomely for such access. It's no different than a large corp or large library. You have 300 people in your organization? You need to buy a group license.

And also:

OK, how you going to limit access? Is it just single, non-employed people who can get access? Perhaps you'd like to expand it to small companies? What size cut off? 10? 100? 500? Perhaps the mid-size biotechs should join up, and drop their own subscriptions. And maybe the smaller colleges?

And from "Mrs. McGreevy" herself, who kicked off the discussion:

Alternatively, if enough people think this is something the ACS should be doing, and start demanding it loudly and frequently, perhaps the ACS will get around to doing it. Maybe they don't know what to do, either. Cheaper access to ACS publications? That would be nice. Perhaps even negotiating group payment rates or even (*gasp*) subsidies for access to other publishers' papers? I wonder if that's even possible, but I'll bet the ACS hasn't even considered it up until now. Perhaps there wouldn't need to be an independent library if the ACS were willing to take on the job. We should ask them. (In fact, why stop at the ACS? Maybe the unemployed biologists would be willing to pony up some time, money and lobbying power as well.)

Another idea would be to subsidize journal access with website ads as well as membership dues. Perhaps start a paid online directory of consultants or CROs, sort of the Ye Olde Yellowe Pages model. Perhaps there could be a small fee for posting an RFP or a project up for bid, sort of a classified ad business model to help clients, CROs and consultants find each other. Various small fees for various small services ==> money for subsidized journal access.

OK, those are the journal thoughts so far (other than a number of people who agree that it's a major problem, as do I!) Any more ideas on this aspect to add to the pile? I'd never heard of DeepDyve myself, and they sound interesting: anyone have any experience with them, and is there anyone else in that market niche? We'll put together some action points after this round of ideas. . .

Comments (25) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | The Scientific Literature

April 12, 2012

A Federation of Independent Researchers?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've had an interesting e-mail from a reader who wants to be signed as "Mrs. McGreevy", and it's comprehensive enough that I'm going to reproduce it in full below.

As everyone but the editorial board of C&E News has noticed, jobs in chemistry are few and far between right now. I found your post on virtual biotechs inspiring, but it doesn't look like anyone has found a good solution for how to support these small firefly businesses until they find their wings, so to speak. Lots of editorials, lots of meetings, lots of rueful headshaking, no real road map forward for unemployed scientists.

I haven't seen this proposed anywhere else, so I'm asking you and your readership if this idea would fly:

What about a voluntary association of independent research scientists?

I'm thinking about charging a small membership fee (for non-profit administration and hard costs) and using group buying power for the practical real-world support a virtual biotech would need:

1. Group rates on health and life insurance.

How many would-be entrepreneurs are stuck in a job they hate because of the the health care plan, or even worse, are unemployed or underemployed and uninsurable, quietly draining their savings accounts and praying no one gets really sick? I have no idea how this would work across state lines, or if it is even possible,but would it hurt to find out? Is anyone else looking?

2. Group rates on access to journals and library services.

This is something I do know a bit about. My M.S. is in library science, and I worked in the Chemistry Library in a large research institution for years during grad school. What if there were one centralized virtual library to which unaffiliated researchers across the country could log in for ejournal access? What if one place could buy and house the print media that start-ups would need to access every so often, and provide a librarian to look things up-- it's not like everyone needs their own print copy of the Canada & US Drug Development Industry & Outsourcing Guide 2012 at $150 a pop. (But if 350 people paid $1 a year for a $350/yr online subscription . . . )

Yes, some of you could go to university libraries and look these things up and print off articles to read at home, but some of you can't. You're probably violating some sort of terms of service agreement the library and publisher worked out anyway. It's not like anyone is likely to bust you unless you print out stacks and stacks of papers, but still. It's one more hassle for a small company to deal with, and everyone will have to re-invent the wheel and waste time and energy negotiating access on their own.

3. How about an online community for support and networking-- places for blogs, reviews, questions, answers, exchanges of best practices, or even just encouragement for that gut-wrenching feeling of going out on your own as a new entrepreneur?

4. What sort of support for grantwriting is out there? Is there a hole that needs to be filled?

5. How about a place to advertise your consulting services or CRO, or even bid for a contract? Virtual RFP posting?

6. Would group buying power help negotiate rates with CROs? How about rates for HTS libraries, for those of you who haven't given up on it completely?

Is there a need for this sort of thing? Would anyone use it if it were available? How much would an unaffiliated researcher be willing to pay for the services? Does anyone out there have an idea of what sort of costs are involved, and what sort of critical mass it would take to achieve the group buying power needed to make this possible?

I'd be happy to spark a discussion on what a virtual biotech company needs besides a spare bedroom and a broadband connection, even if the consensus opinion is that the OP an ill-informed twit with an idea that will never fly. What do you need to get a virtual biotech started? How do we make it happen? There are thousands of unemployed lab scientists, and I refuse to believe that the only guy making a living these days from a small independently-funded lab is Bryan Cranston.

A very worthy topic indeed, and one whose time looks to have come. Thoughts on how to make such a thing happen?

Comments (59) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | Drug Development | General Scientific News | The Scientific Literature

April 11, 2012

A New Journal (With Bonus Elsevier-Bashing)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You know, I think that we really are seeing the breakup of the current model of scientific publishing. Spät kommt er, doch er kommt: it's coming on slowly, and in stages, but it's looking more and more inevitable. Take this news from the Wellcome Trust, one of the largest funding agencies in the world for medical research:

Sir Mark Walport, the director of Wellcome Trust, said that his organisation is in the final stages of launching a high calibre scientific journal called eLife that would compete directly with top-tier publications such as Nature and Science, seen by scientists as the premier locations for publishing. Unlike traditional journals, however, which cost British universities hundreds of millions of pounds a year to access, articles in eLife will be free to view on the web as soon as they are published. . .

Walport, who is a fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, said the results of public and charity-funded scientific research should be freely available to anyone who wants to read it, for whatever purpose they need it. His comments echo growing concerns from scientists who baulk at the rising costs of academic journals, particularly in a time of shrinking university budgets.

That journal is being launched with the Max Planck Gesellschaft and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, so it's definitely something worth taking seriously. And outside of that new journal, they're going as far as considering sanctions in funding for any researchers who don't adhere to their open-access policies (basically, free within six months of publication in a journal). I was looking up some papers from back in the 1980s the other day, and was reminded, by contrast, of the policies of some of the commercial publishers: never free, ever, no matter how old it is, or who funded it. Gold, those journal archives are: the costs are long gone; it's all been digitized for years and sits on the servers. But anyone who wants to look at a thirty-year-old paper in Tet Lett had better get ready to pony up. Patents expire, as they should, but copyright? Hah!

Elsevier says in the article that they're committed to offering their customers "choice", and that gosh, the subscription model is just so darn popular that they don't see how they can go against the wishes of their customers by getting rid of it. I particularly enjoyed this quote:

A spokesperson for Elsevier said the company was open to any "mechanism or business model, as long as they are sustainable and maintain or improve existing levels of quality control".

This is the Elsevier that can't manage to fix their own RSS feeds for months, that set up a whole fake-but-real journal division for the advertising revenue, that solicits good textbook reviews on Amazon in exchange for $25 gift cards, that charged people $4500 a year to read a journal stuffed with the editor's own nonsensical papers, and whose chemistry titles repeatedly let through howlers that even undergraduates could have spotted?

That level of quality control is going to be quite a strain to keep up. And yes, I know that the other publishers hardly have clean records, but they managed not to be quoted about their quality control. This time, anyway.

Comments (28) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 29, 2012

Sloppy Science

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Nature has a comment on the quality of recent publications in clinical oncology. And it's not a kind one:

Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis analyse the low number of cancer-research studies that have been converted into clinical success, and conclude that a major factor is the overall poor quality of published preclinical data. A warning sign, they say, should be the “shocking” number of research papers in the field for which the main findings could not be reproduced. To be clear, this is not fraud — and there can be legitimate technical reasons why basic research findings do not stand up in clinical work. But the overall impression the article leaves is of insufficient thoroughness in the way that too many researchers present their data.

The finding resonates with a growing sense of unease among specialist editors on this journal, and not just in the field of oncology. Across the life sciences, handling corrections that have arisen from avoidable errors in manuscripts has become an uncomfortable part of the publishing process.

I think that this problem has been with us for quite a while, and that there are a few factors making it more noticeable: more journals to publish in, for one thing, and increased publication pressure, for another. And the online availability of papers makes it easier to compare publications and to call them up quickly; things don't sit on the shelf in quite the way that they used to. But there's no doubt that a lot of putatively interesting results in the literature are not real. To go along with that link, the Nature article itself referred to in that commentary has some more data:

Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists. . .in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies. . . It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result.

Of course, the validation attempts may have failed because of technical differences or difficulties, despite efforts to ensure that this was not the case. Additional models were also used in the validation, because to drive a drug-development programme it is essential that findings are sufficiently robust and applicable beyond the one narrow experimental model that may have been enough for publication. To address these concerns, when findings could not be reproduced, an attempt was made to contact the original authors, discuss the discrepant findings, exchange reagents and repeat experiments under the authors' direction, occasionally even in the laboratory of the original investigator. These investigators were all competent, well-meaning scientists who truly wanted to make advances in cancer research.

So what leads to these things not working out? Often, it's trying to run with a hypothesis, and taking things faster than they can be taken:

In studies for which findings could be reproduced, authors had paid close attention to controls, reagents, investigator bias and describing the complete data set. For results that could not be reproduced, however, data were not routinely analysed by investigators blinded to the experimental versus control groups. Investigators frequently presented the results of one experiment, such as a single Western-blot analysis. They sometimes said they presented specific experiments that supported their underlying hypothesis, but that were not reflective of the entire data set. . .

This can rise, on occasion, to the level of fraud, but it's not fraud if you're fooling yourself, too. Science is done by humans, and it's always going to have a fair amount of slop in it. The same issue of Nature, as fate would have it has a good example of irreproducibility this week. Sanofi's PARP inhibitor iniparib already wiped out in Phase III clinical trials not long ago, after having looked good in Phase II. It now looks as if the compound was (earlier reports notwithstanding) never much of a PARP1 inhibitor at all. (Since one of these papers is from Abbott, you can see that doubts had already arisen elsewhere in the industry).

That's not the whole story with PARP - AstraZeneca had a real inhibitor, olaparib, fail on them recently, so there may well be a problem with the whole idea. But iniparib's mechanism-of-action problems certainly didn't help to clear anything up.

Begley and Ellis call for tightening up preclinical oncology research. There are plenty of cell experiments that will not support the claims made for them, for one thing, and we should stop pretending that they do. They also would like to see blinded protocols followed, even preclinically, to try to eliminate wishful thinking. That's a tall order, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Update: here's more on the story. Try this quote:

Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Cancer | Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

March 16, 2012

Elsevier's RSS Feeds: Maybe a Not-So-Minor Complaint

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

As has been noted here in the comments sections, the RSS feeds of Elsevier's journals have been hosed, in various ways, for some time now. Things don't come through, or they don't come through correctly, or they're duplicated, or you get abstracts from journals that you never heard of. How many people - those of you who read journals via RSS - are experiencing these problems? And has anyone gotten Elsevier to respond to any complaints?

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 5, 2012

Department of Lots of Nerve (Patent Applications Desk)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

When you file a patent application, there are plenty of things that the PTO wants you to include. One of the big ones is prior art: you're supposed to disclose all the relevant inventions close to yours that you're aware of, in order to show how your discovery is different. Prior art is naturally to be found in other previous patent filings, and it's also to be found in journal articles and other such public disclosures. If you don't submit relevant prior art that is known to you, your patent application gets into a lot of trouble eventually (and the more worthwhile your invention, the greater the chance becomes of that catching up with you).

So in light of this, you might find it interesting that some of the large scientific publishers are suing over all this. Why? Well, these lawsuits (filed by Wiley and by the American Institute of Physics) allege that the accused law firms violated copyright by submitting unauthorized copies of journal articles with their patent applications.

As that post at PatentlyO goes on to show, the plaintiffs seem to also be very interested in the internal copies of articles that the law firms are making. But I don't really see how they're going to make either of these stick. I mean, I tend to think that a lot of things are "fair use", but aren't these? This really looks like an act of desperation - the traditional scientific publishing model must be in even worse shape than I thought.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature

February 29, 2012

Bias in Industry-Funded Trials in Rheumatoid Arthritis?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The title of this one says it all: "Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis". Any number of critics of the drug business will tell you what that association is: we publish the good stuff and bury the bad news, right?

Well, not so much in arthritis, apparently. The authors identified 103 recent clinical trials in the area, over half of them industry-funded. But when it came to outcomes, things were pretty much the same. Trials from the three largest classes of funding (industry, nonprofit, and "unspecified") all tended to strongly favor the tested drug, although the small number (six) of mixed-funding trials ended up with two favoring and four against. The industry-run trials tended to have more subjects, while the nonprofit ones tended to run longer. The industrial trials also tended to have a more complete description of their intent-to-treat and workflow. As you'd figure, the industrial trials tended to be on newer agents, while the others tended to investigate different combinations or treatment regimens with older ones. But the take-home is this:

No association between funding source and the study outcome was found after adjustment for the type of study drug used, number of study center, study phase, number of study subject, or journal impact factor. . .

. . .Though preponderance of data in medical literature shows that industry funding leads to higher chances of pro-industry results and conclusions, we did not find any association between the funding source and the study outcome of "published" (randomized clinical trials) of RA drug therapies.

The one worrying thing they did find was a trend towards publication bias - the industry-sponsored studies showed up less often in the literature. The authors speculate as to whether these were trials with less favorable outcomes, but didn't have enough data to say one way or another. . .

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Clinical Trials | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

February 28, 2012

Yes, The Research Works Act Is Dead

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The sponsors of the Research Works Act (Representatives Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Darrell Issa, R-California) have announced that they will not be bringing it forward. Elsevier's backtrack was indeed the sign.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 27, 2012

Is the Research Works Act Dead?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

It may well be. This morning comes news that Elsevier has dropped support for the RWA, which makes one think that they're feeling the pressure:

We have heard expressions of support from publishers and scholarly societies for the principle behind the legislation. However, we have also heard from some Elsevier journal authors, editors and reviewers who were concerned that the Act seemed inconsistent with Elsevier’s long-standing support for expanding options for free and low-cost public access to scholarly literature. That was certainly not our intention in supporting it. . .

While we continue to oppose government mandates in this area, Elsevier is withdrawing support for the Research Work Act itself. We hope this will address some of the concerns expressed and help create a less heated and more productive climate for our ongoing discussions with research funders. . .

You can smell the smoke from the brake pads, and hear the reverse gears engaging. Maybe now the American Chemical Society will make a public statement - I haven't heard anything from them yet, although their default position (as a member of the AAP) is to support it. (They supported a previous version of the bill in 2008).

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 16, 2012

Imidazole-1-Sulfonyl Azide HCl: Look Out

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I don't know how many of you out there like to form azides, but if you do, you've probably used (or thought about using) imidazole-1-sulfonyl azide hydrochloride. This reagent appeared in Organic Letters a few years ago as a safe-to-handle shelf-stable azide transfer reagent, and seems to have found popularity. (I've used it myself).

So it was with some alarm that I noted this new paper on the stability and handling characteristics of the reagent. It's a collaboration between the University of Western Australia (where the reagent was developed, partly by the guy whose lab bench I took over in grad school back in 1983, Bob Stick), the University of British Columbia, and the Klapötke group at Munich. That last bunch is known to readers of "Things I Won't Work With", as experts in energetic materials, and when I saw that name I knew I'd better read the paper pronto.

As it turns out, the hydrochloride isn't quite as optimal as thought. It's impact-sensitive, for one thing, and not shelf-stable. The new paper mentions that it decomposes with an odor of hydrazoic acid on storage - you don't want odors of hydrazoic acid, believe me - and I thought while reading that, "Hmm. My bottle of the stuff is white crystalline powder; that's strange." But then I realized that I hadn't looked at my bottle for a few months. And as if by magic, there it was, turning dark and gooey. I had the irrational thought that the act of reading this paper had suddenly turned my reagent into hazardous waste, but no, it's been doing that slowly on its own.

So if you have some of this reagent around, take care. The latest work suggests that the hydrogensulfate salt, and especially the fluoroborate, are less sensitive and more stable alternatives to the hydrochloride, and I guess I'll have to make some at some point. (They also made the perchlorate - just for the sake of science, y'know - and report, to no one's surprise, that it "should not be prepared by those without expertise in handling energetic materials"). But it needs no ghost come from the grave to tell us this.

So, back to my lab and my waste-disposal problem! And here's a note on the literature. We have the original prep of the reagent, a follow-up note on stability problems, and this latest paper on alternatives. But when you go back to the original paper, there is no mention of the later hazard information. Shouldn't there be a note, a link, or something? Why isn't there? Anyone at Organic Letters or the ACS care to comment on that?

Update: I've successfully opened my bottle, with tongs and behind a blast shield, just to be on the safe side, and defanged the stuff off by dilution.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | Safety Warnings | The Scientific Literature

February 14, 2012

An Elsevier Boycott

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's been a movement afoot to boycott Elsevier journals. It's started over in the mathematics community, led by Timothy Gowers, a serious mathematician indeed. The objections to Elsevier are the ones you'd think: high prices, unsplittable bundles of journal subscriptions for institutions, and their strong support for legislation like the Research Works Act.

Writing about this is tricky, since I'm on the editorial board of an ACS journal that competes with Elsevier titles. Of course, as that link in the first paragraph shows, Nature Publishing Group has no problem talking about the issue themselves, and they're competing tooth and claw with Elsevier. At any rate, there's now a central website for the boycott movement, and it continues to gain publicity. There are, of course, some field where Elsevier is more prominent than others - biomedically, the Cell Press journals (and The Lancet) are heavy hitters, so a real test of this movement will be to see how many people from these fields it can attract.

Personally, I think that the current system of scientific publishing is increasingly outmoded, although I'm loath to forecast what will replace it. But we could be looking at another step in its demise.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 8, 2012

Every Methods Paper Has a Table

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a helpful translation, and there's more truth in it than there should be. My rule of thumb is to be extremely suspicious of a methods paper that doesn't have at least a couple of low-yielding or "NR" entries. If they aren't there, it means that someone didn't do enough experiments (or, worse, that they're not telling you about those little details).

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 3, 2012

How the Andrulis Paper Got Published

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The editor of the journal Life has published an attempt at detailing how the notorious Andrulis paper managed to make its way into print. See how convincing you find it. In the course of explaining that it can be hard to find reviewers for interdisciplinary topics, and how the journal tries to find reputable people in each field (and carefully checks author suggestions for reviewers), we have this:

Life is a new journal that deals with new and sometime difficult interdisciplinary matters. Consequently, the journal will occasionally be presented with submitted articles that are controversial and/or outside conventional scientific views. Some papers recently accepted for publication in Life have attracted significant attention. Moreover, members of the Editorial Board have objected to these papers; some have resigned, and others have questioned the scientific validity of the contributions. . .

. . .In the case of the Dr. Andrulis’s long paper, the two reviewers were both faculty members of reputable universities different than the author’s and both went to considerable trouble presenting lengthy review reports. Dr. Andrulis revised his manuscript as requested, and the paper was subsequently published.

Really? Is that how it really went? I know what I would have said if they'd sent the paper to me: that it was a perfect example of what happens when an active, learned mind begins to slip loose from its moorings, and that while the paper appeared to have no scientific merit at all, it was quite useful as a diagnostic sign of oncoming psychosis.

If you only read the Life editor's remarks without reading any of the original paper, you might find them reasonable. But that's because you haven't been exposed to a theory that purports to explain the abiotic origins of life, the underlying principles of biochemistry, the formation of the solar system, the expansion of the universe, global weather patterns, the structure of cellular membranes, the distributions of comets and asteroids, the origins of riboviruses, the protein folding problem, the nature of biological aging, and the unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity. I have not made any of that up, it's all in the paper, and I would very much like to see a reviewer who could let all that go past. "Publish with revisions", sure.

Comments (23) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 31, 2012

The Andrulis Paper's Fallout

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The fallout from the bizarre Andrulis paper continues. Carl Zimmer reports that editorial board members are resigning from the journal, having had no idea that their names would wind up over something like this.

Naturally, that brings up the question of just who did let this thing through the review process, but my bet is that we'll never know. Whoever signed off on it is no doubt running for cover.

Another useful feature this affair has had is the chance to see who just posts press releases for fun and profit, and who has some tiny residual bit of editorial discretion. In the former category, apparently, are and (the latter has taken down their post. But then again, the Times of India bit for it as well. . .

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 30, 2012

The Key to Everything? Not Quite.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's one of the strangest things I've ever seen in the scientific literature. A new journal, Life, apparently solicited papers for their inaugural issues, and one of them was from Erik Andrulis at Cast Western's School of Medicine. The manuscript came in at 105 printed pages, which should have rung at least a tiny alarm bell, you'd think. And if that wasn't a bit concerning, perhaps the title ("Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life") might have seemed a bit sweeping? Or the abstract, which promises that "The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe." No? Nothing to worry about yet?

But editors aren't supposed to just look at page counts, titles, and abstracts. Just a riffle through the actual manuscript should have been enough to convince anyone that, rather than a Theory of Everything, that this work is, most unfortunately, the product of a disordered mind. P. Z. Myers has excerpts from the paper on his blog - take a look and see what you think. Here's a sample, and it should really be sufficient:

The ultimate state of gyromnemesis is the stably adapted particle or gyronexus in the gyrobase. . .Finally, although a diquantal IEM (X'') undergoes gyrognosis as the gyrobase of a primary majorgyre, it undergoes gyromnemesis as the gyrapex of an alternagyre.

Right. The paper ranges through the origins of life, organic chemistry, cosmology, geology, astronomy, and who knows what else, all of it explained in language exactly like the above. And yes, there is a multi-page glossary of all those gyro-terms, and no, it does not help. As Myers points out, the spectacularly weird thing is that not only did this paper get published, it got press-released by Case Western. Here, check it out. Whoever put this thing together has gamely attempted to summarize the paper, and not only that, to highlight its importance for the greater glory of Case Western:

To test his paradigm, Dr. Andrulis designed bidirectional flow diagrams that both depict and predict the dynamics of energy and matter. While such diagrams may be foreign to some scientists, they are standard reaction notation to chemists, biochemists, and biologists.

Dr. Andrulis has used his theory to successfully predict and identify a hidden signature of RNA biogenesis in his laboratory at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is now applying the gyromodel to unify and explain the evolution and development of human beings.

Oh, go take a look and tell me if you see any standard notation. (Update: I see from RetractionWatch that the university has pulled the release from their own sites, saying that they're "evaluating our processes regarding media outreach". I'll bet they are(. Now, I realize that picking up a text on, say, quantum electrodynamics could lead to the same what-is-this-stuff feeling. But any text on QED starts with a grounding in the physical world and the connections of the theory to known physics. And this sort of thing is different in both degree and kind (for one thing, QED has nothing to say about lunar craters). There's a difference between a work that makes you think "Boy, I don't understand this" and one that makes you think "Boy, this person has lost it". The near-infallible signs of scientific derangement include the "Why, this explains everything" aspect, the "Everything you thought you knew is wrong" one, and the intricate details-within-details style, almost always taken to unbearable lengths.

What the Andrulis paper reminds me of, actually, is Alfred Lawson and his Lawsonomy. That one also explains everything from bacteria to the composition of the moon, and brings in "zig-zag and swirl" motions to do so, at excruciating length. No, if you've had any exposure to the fill-the-margins-with-green-ink thinkers, you'll recognize Andrulis' problem, and hope that he can get some sort of help for it. Here's a book-length collection of such, very interesting for what it shows you about the ways that human reason can go off the rails.

That's something I've thought about for a long time - in fact, here's an entry on this blog from ten years ago on that very subject. It's interesting to me that there are a limited number of relatively defined mental illnesses; I think that says something about the deeper structures of human consciousness. The Andrulis paper is a flawless example of one of those categories - the wildly intricate, over-systematized Key to the Universe. I've just never seen one in a scientific journal.

Comments (68) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 19, 2012

The Research Works Act: One (Two!) Against and One For

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I noted that the Nature Publishing Group has come out against the proposed Research Works Act, which would roll back the requirement that research funded by the US government be made freely available after (at most) one year. They are, I believe, the largest and most prominent journal publisher to take such a stand (although I'll be glad to be wrong about that):

NPG and Digital Science do not support the Research Works Act.

NPG and Digital Science exist to support the creation and dissemination of human knowledge on a sustainable commercial basis. We seek to enable the open exchange of ideas, especially in scientific communities, in line with the requirements and objectives of relevant stakeholders.

Update: from the comments, the AAAS (publishers of Science) have also come out against the RWA, saying that they're fine with the current system, and that their membership in the AAP does not mean that the organization speaks for them on this issue. How about the American Chemical Society? As far as I can tell, the ACS has made no statement, and silence speaks loudly.

Meanwhile, Rich Apodaca at Depth-First surprised me with this post coming out in favor of the RWA. But read the whole thing. He is, as the Marxists used to say, interested in "heightening the contradictions", and sees the scientific publishing industry bringing down the roof on its head even faster if the act passes. And the sooner that happens, he says, the sooner we can get rid of an outmoded system:

Any scientist who has been an active participant in scientific publication as an author, reviewer, and consumer recognizes that the only remaining value added by scientific publishers today is imprimatur. Imprimatur is the implied endorsement received by authors who publish in certain scientific journals, particularly in those that earned a high level of prestige during the pre-digital period of publication scarcity.

Ironically, imprimatur remains so valuable in science that it has kept numerous publishers afloat despite wave upon wave digital destruction being visited on sister industries such as book publication and newspapers.

But imprimatur can lose its luster, particularly in an environment in which fewer and fewer scientist can actually read the publications appearing in ‘high-impact’ journals. Prestige counts for nothing in science if your peers can’t read your papers. Nevertheless, that’s where scientific publication is heading.

I'm not sure which way is faster, myself. But we agree that the current scientific publishing model is being eroded, and that this is an opportunity, not a disaster that has to be repaired with legislation.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 17, 2012

Down With the Research Works Act

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Back in December, a short bill was introduced in the House called the "Research Works Act". Its backers, Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), describe it as something that will maintain the US's standing in scientific publishing. After looking over its language and reading a number of commentaries on it, I have to disagree: this looks to me like shameless rent-seeking by the commercial scientific publishers.

And it pains me to say that, because I know several people in that business. But it's a business whose long-term model has problems. (See the Addendum below if you're not in the field and want a brief summary of how scientific publishing works). The problem is, the work of the editorial staff has changed a good deal over the years. Back when everyone sent in hard copies of papers, in who knows what sort of format, there was a good deal of work to do just turning the good ones into a consistent journal. Electronic submission has ironed a lot of the grunt work out - it's still work, but it's not what it used to be.

That leaves the higher editorial functions themselves, and here's where the arguing starts. Most, and in some cases all editing of content is done by unpaid peer reviewers. There are journals whose editors exist mainly to keep the flow of submissions moving to the reviewers, and from them back into the official journal, while hardly ever laying a finger on the copy itself. They function as Peer Review Mailroom Managers. And while that's a necessary job, it's the center of the argument about scientific publishing today. How much, exactly, is it worth?

Scientific journal are expensive. I mean, really, really expensive to subscribe to. And if you're not a subscriber, access to individual papers is pretty steep, too - typically in the $15 to $50 range. This is the business model for commercial scientific publishing: create a space with value (reputation, name recognition) and charge the maximum that that traffic will bear. And that's fine; there are a lot of businesses that work the same way - if they can.

The problem is, the information-sharing capabilities of the Internet blow a large hole in some of the traditional publishing model. And another problem is that a large number of papers that come into the journals from US academic researchers have had some (or all) of that work paid for by government grants (NIH, NSF, DOE and so on). As it stands, articles funded by the NIH are available in PubMed Central for free access, no later (by law) than 12 months from the initial journal publication. Researchers can also submit their work to "open access" journals (such as those from the Public Library of Science), which charge a fee to authors to defray editorial costs, but then allow immediate unlimited access to all comers once a paper is accepted. (I should note that some commercial journals get away with "page charges" as well, and some have a model where the authors can pay extra to bring their paper out from behind the paywall).

And here's where we have the Research Works Act. It would forbid any publication in an open access journal for anything funded in academia by US government grants, and it would forbid any public-access repository for such work. That's its purpose. Well, to be more accurate, its purpose, as described by the head of the Association of American Publishers, is that it "ensures the sustainability of the industry". Yep, make my business model part of statutory law, and beggar my competition: what else is a government for, anyway?

Update: see the comments section. I'm interpreting the text of the law to mean the above, but another way to read it - probably the correct one - is that it's mainly rolling back the 2008 law that mandates that NIH-funded papers go open-access after a year. But that's bad enough as it stands.

To their credit, the MIT Press looks like the first big academic publisher to defect from this position. But the commercial publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, and so on) will never give up on this goal. Yes, the RWA, according to them, is aimed at "preventing regulatory interference with private-sector research publishers". Here's Congresswoman Maloney using Elsevier's own press release language, sentence by sentence, as detailed by Michael Eisen, co-founder of PLoS. (He also has an op-ed in the New York Times on this issue).

I see no reason why we should make the current scientific publishing system a matter of law. I think it should change - and be allowed to change - as new technology allows it to. And I think that the Research Works Act is nothing more a blatant attempt to hold on to a profitable business plan.

Addendum: For those outside the scientific world, here's a brief summary of how things have traditionally worked. As a scientist (academic or industrial), you take the time and effort to write up your results for a journal. You have to pick your journal at the start of the process, since each of them have their own ways of organizing a paper, their own preferred way of citing other papers as references, and so on. Anyone can send anything to any journal they feel like, although you'd be well advised to target your paper to the ones that (a) have the best chance to actually accept it and (b) will do you good to have a paper published in. The overlap between those two may not be large, or may not exist at all, depending on your paper. These days, most journals have templates for Word or the like, which standardizes the submissions, and have some sort of automatic PDF generation during the submission step step so you can see how the paper will look when formatted in the journal's style and page layout.

Your manuscript is given a quick check to make sure that it's appropriate for review. A few of of the higher-end journals make this a key step, because they can afford to turn down even rather interesting papers as not necessarily worth their time to go on checking. But in most journals, unless there's something obviously off, your paper goes out for peer review. Two or more scientists from Out There Somewhere look it over and send in comments. Those comment forms have a section for the original authors to see, and a section for remarks that go just to the editorial staff, and you can use those as you see fit. (I, for example, once used the latter forum to ask the editors to please stop sending me papers from a certain author, because I'd done three of them and couldn't stand to see any more. They honored my request.)

As an author, you see the comments when they come back and get a recommendation from the journal - usually it's "Publish as is", "Publish after minor revisions", "Publish after major revisions", or "Go away". That last one usually isn't expressed in quite those words. The middle two are the most common, since most stuff eventually gets published somewhere if the authors are persistent enough (and are willing enough to have their work appear in the Zambodian Journal of Chemistry or what have you).

Now at this point, traditionally, the work of assembling the accepted papers into a printed journal kicks in on the editorial side. And it still does, but that process is becoming less and less important. I honestly can't tell you when I last saw a hard copy of any of the journals I read regularly. Even the idea of separate issues is becoming antiquated, since new papers (in the case of many journals) just plop out onto the web site (and into the RSS feeds) as they emerge from the review process.

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 16, 2012

Defending Das' Resvertrol Research. Oh, Come On.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I'm getting all the press releases from Bill Sardi, of Resveratrol Partners, as he does damage control from the Das scandal at UConn. And I have to say, he's putting in the hours getting these together. Problem is, on some key points, he doesn't know what his biggest problems are.

The latest one is titled "World Without Resveratrol: Researcher Falsely Accused", and claims that this may all be a plan to "send a message" to any academic who collaborates with the makers of resveratrol pills. The release goes on about how these are old accusations, which Das has refuted since then, and asks why these ancient concerns are coming up now, eh? The phrase "orchestrated hit job" is used. But that glosses over the times of the whole investigation, which has been a very detailed and involved one, and glosses over the amount of due process involved as well. There are a lot of problems with the publications from the Das lab, as detailed in the report that I linked to the other day, and tying them together has involved a lot of work.

But here comes my favorite part of the latest Sardi release:

". . .I asked Dr. Das directly, did he altered (sic) western blot images, or directed others in his lab to do so. While his initial answer was no, meaning he had not fabricated or altered any scientific finding, altering western blot images are a common practice in laboratories for reasons other than deception. The university chose to present their findings in a derogatory manner. Dr. Das explains that editors at scientific publications commonly request researchers enhance faded images of western blot tests so they can be duplicated in their publications. Western blot tests are frequently altered to remove backgrounds, enhance contrast and increase dots-per-inch resolution so they are suitable for publication. This had been fully explained to university officials long before. . .

No, no, no. The problems with the Das papers have nothing to do with enhancing the contrast on Western blots. They have to do with cutting and pasting sections of them, rearranging them, reusing them, and creating them out of pieces of other experiments. Look at that report. These people appear to have spent a ridiculous amount of time assembling "Western blots" out of miscellaneous digitized chunks. The resulting figures purport, in many cases, to represent particular experiments, but they do no such thing. They represent a bunch of previous bands from other experiments entirely, sliced and diced in a way that would seem to have no other possible motive than to deceive. Come on.

Oh, but there's more. Here, according to the press release, is how a cutting-edge academic lab works these days:

"As I drilled Dr. Das’ former students with questions, I found that lead researchers like Dr. Das do not do any lab bench experiments. Students do all the work and submit their results to him via e-mail or by directly downloading data into his computer. Dr. Das says when he is not traveling his office is open and students can enter and download data directly onto his computer. I had previously visited Dr. Das at the University of Connecticut and noticed his office door was left open and anyone could have access to his computer.

One former student told me that typically lead researchers like Dr. Das write the introduction and conclusion of experiments and the students enter all the data, before publication in scientific journals. Dr. Das, who is busy lecturing all over the globe because of his groundbreaking studies, does not directly oversee tests that are performed, and neither do most other lead researchers. The University of Connecticut report says the university holds Dr. Das responsible for all of the data. Probably most lead researchers in scientific laboratories around the globe are vulnerable to errors or even fabrication of data by their students."

Where to start? What the heck is this "download data directly into his computer" stuff? And what about all the doctored files found on other machines in the group? And yes, while lead authors are indeed vulnerable to errors and fabrication, this sort of thing typically does not involved years of work spread out across dozens of papers in multiple journals. Even the busiest and most distracted principal investigator might be expected to take the time to notice, eventually, that his group's work is a tower of fraud. And yes, the University should hold Dr. Das responsible for the data in his papers. His name is on the grants, his name is on the office door, he's the one with a high-paying tenured position while the students are cranking away under low salaries and stipends, and it's his name with an asterisk next to it on all those papers, as the contact person for any questions about them. Damn right he's responsible. He's responsible for making sure that anything going out into the literature with his name on it is something that he can stand behind.

Ah, but not to worry. It's all being taken care of:

"Dr. Das says many editors at scientific journals don’t believe the University of Connecticut report. They full-well know that editing of western blot tests is common practice and that the tests in question in no way invalidate his work and were only one part of the evidence provided in his papers from which Dr. Das drew conclusions. This is the case of scientific fraud that wasn’t."

That would explain why Dr. Das has been pulled from the co-editor job he had at one of those journals. They must believe him. And that would also shore up all those allegations of prejudice against East Indian researchers, since the editor of that journal is. . .well, he's Indian too, but you know what I mean. (Personally, if I were from India myself, I'd be furious at Das for helping to drag the reputation of my country's scientists through the mudhole, but maybe that's just me.)

No, I hope these press releases keep on coming. So far, we have lots of elaborate reasons why Dr. Das had nothing to do with all these fabricated Western blots, but who cares, right, since they're only a tiny part of his papers, which are great and important work even though he really doesn't write them anyway, and no, he has almost no connection with Longevinex and Resveratrol Partners, which is why the head of the company is spending all this time defending him in this case of minor stuff he never did, all 600 pages of summary and 60,000 pages of investigation material, and that explains why the journals that believe him are ditching him from their mastheads and publishing retractions of those great papers. Because it's all a conspiracy. Yeah. That's it.

Comments (28) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Aging and Lifespan | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

January 6, 2012

SciFinder Access For the Unemployed

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

If you had SciFinder access, but are now unemployed and would like to use it during your job hunt, CAS now has a program to make that possible for free. I'm glad to see them taking this step; a lot of people have asked for something like this for some time now.

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | The Scientific Literature

January 5, 2012

Lead-Oriented Synthesis - What Might That Be?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A new paper in Angewandte Chemie tries to open another front in relations between academic and drug industry chemists. It's from several authors at GSK-Stevenage, and it proposes something they're calling "Lead-Oriented Synthesis". So what's that?

Well, the paper itself starts out as a quick tutorial on the state and practice of medicinal chemistry. That's a good plan, since Angewandte Chemie is not primarily a med-chem journal (he said with a straight face). Actually, it has the opposite reputation, a forum where high-end academic chemistry gets showplaced. So the authors start off by reminded the readership what drug discovery entails. And although we've had plenty of discussions around here about these topics, I think that most people can agree on the main points laid out:

1. Physical properties influence a drug's behavior.
2. Among those properties, logP may well be the most important single descriptor,
3. Most successful drugs have logP values between 1 and perhaps 4 or 5. Pushing the lipophilicity end of things is, generally speaking, asking for trouble.
4. Since optimization of lead compounds almost always adds molecular weight, and very frequently adds lipophilicity, lead compounds are better found in (and past) the low ends of these property ranges, to reduce the risk of making an unwieldy final compound.

As the authors take pains to say, though, there are many successful drugs that fall outside these ranges. But many of those turn out to have some special features - antibacterial compounds (for example) tend to be more polar outliers, for reasons that are still being debated. There is, though, no similar class of successful less polar than usual drugs, to my knowledge. If you're starting a program against a target that you have no reason to think is an outlier, and assuming you want an oral drug for it, then your chances for success do seem to be higher within the known property ranges.

So, overall, the GSK folks maintain that lead compounds for drug discovery are most desirable with logP values between -1 and 3, molecular weights from around 200 to 350, and no problematic functional groups (redox-active and so on). And I have to agree; given the choice, that's where I'd like to start, too. So why are they telling all this to the readers of Angewandte Chemie? Because these aren't the sorts of compounds that academic chemists are interested in making.

For example, a survey of the 2009 issues of the Journal of Organic Chemistry found about 32,700 compounds indexed with the word "preparation" in Chemical Abstracts, after organometallics, isotopically labeled compounds, and commercially available ones were stripped out. 60% of those are outside the molecular weight criteria for lead-like compounds. Over half the remainder fail cLogP, and most of the remaining ones fail the internal GSK structural filters for problematic functional groups. Overall, only about 2% of the JOC compounds from that year would be called "lead-like". A similar analysis across seven other synthetic organic journals led to almost the same results.

Looking at array/library synthesis, as reported in the Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry and from inside GSK's own labs, the authors quantify something else that most chemists suspected: the more polar structures tend to drop out as the work goes on. This "cLogP drift" seems to be due to incompatible chemistries or difficulties in isolation and purification, and this could also illustrate why many new synthetic methods aren't applied in lead-like chemical space: they don't work as well there.

So that's what underlies the call for "lead-oriented synthesis". This paper is asking for the development of robust reactions which will work across a variety of structural types, will be tolerant of polar functionalities, and will generate compounds without such potentially problematic groups as Michael acceptors, nitros, and the like. That's not so easy, when you actually try to do it, and the hope is that it's enough of a challenge to attract people who are trying to develop new chemistry.

Just getting a high-profile paper of this sort out into the literature could help, because it's something to reference in (say) grant applications, to show that the proposed research is really filling a need. Academic chemists tend, broadly, to work on what will advance or maintain their positions and careers, and if coming up with new reactions of this kind can be seen as doing that, then people will step up and try it. And the converse applies, too, and how: if there's no perceived need for it, no one will bother. That's especially true when you're talking about making molecules that are smaller than the usual big-and-complex synthetic targets, and made via harder-than-it-looks chemistry.

Thoughts from the industrial end of things? I'd be happy to see more work like this being done, although I think it' going to take more than one paper like this to get it going. That said, the intersection with popular fragment-based drug design ideas, which are already having an effect in the purely academic world of diversity-oriented synthesis, might give an extra impetus to all this.

Comments (34) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | Drug Assays | Drug Development | The Scientific Literature

January 4, 2012

The Changing Literature

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The folks behind Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky) have a piece in Nature on what it's been like since they started the blog.

They note a new trend - for new data to appear when a retraction is called for (or made), but without any clarity about whether these new corroborative results have been peer-reviewed themselves. And they're absolutely right that a retraction should state exactly why the paper is being retracted; those "This paper has been withdrawn by the authors" notices are less than useless.Their experiences have them calling for a different way of looking at scientific papers in general:

". . . It is important to point out that an increase in retractions isn't necessarily a bad thing, because they correct the scientific record. But the greater visibility of papers and retractions today adds to the evidence revealing why editors need to handle retractions more transparently. In turn, researchers need to stop emphasizing the paper so much.

What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded."

It's true that more and more of this is being done out here on the internet, in public, and in real time. (I'm glad to say that some of it is done on this site). The new Crossmark system (now being tested) might be a way to keep up with all these extensions, and link them to the original paper. Such a system would have come in very handy indeed during the "arsenic bacteria" business, during which just finding all the useful comments was a real job in itself. There are authors who will not care for this sort of thing, but when you publish a paper, you're opening the door to public comment (and criticism). It's just that now we have the tools to do that more quickly and thoroughly.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 28, 2011

Nowhere to Go But Up?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wanted to let people know that I've got a "Perspective" piece in ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, entitled "Nowhere to Go But Up?". The journal is starting to run these opinion/overview articles, and contacted me for one - I hope it's the sort of thing that they were looking for!

Comments (38) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Industry History | The Scientific Literature

December 20, 2011

Best Paper You Read This Year?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since the year is winding down, I had a question for the readership: what's the best scientific paper you read this year? Let's restrict the field to chemistry and biology; I'm not ready for particle physics. And I don't necessarily mean "best written", although you're free to nominate some if you can find any that stood out. What I had in mind was more "Most interesting" or "Most unexpectedly useful", or "Most surprising". I've got a couple in mind myself - I'll turn the suggestions into another post or two.

Comments (58) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 6, 2011

Riding to the Rescue of Rhodanines

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a new paper coming to the defense of rhodanines, a class of compound that has been described as "polluting the scientific literature". Industrial drug discovery people tend to look down on them, but they show up a lot, for sure.

This new paper starts off sounding like a call to arms for rhodanine fans, but when you actually read it, I don't think that there's much grounds for disagreement. (That's a phenomenon that's worth writing about sometime by itself - the disconnects between title/abstract and actual body text that occur in the scientific literature). As I see it, the people with a low opinion of rhodanines are saying "Look out! These things hit in a lot of assays, and they're very hard to develop into drugs!". And this paper, when you read the whole thing, is saying something like "Don't throw away all the rhodanines yet! They hit a lot of things, but once in a while one of them can be developed into a drug!" The argument is between people who say that elephants are big and people who say that they have trunks.

The authors prepared a good-sized assortment of rhodanines and similar heterocycles (thiohydantoins, hydantoins, thiazolidinediones) and assayed them across several enzymes. Only the ones with double-bonded sulfur (rhodanines and thiohydantoins) showed a lot of cross-enzyme potency - that group has rather unusual electronic properties, which could be a lot of the story. Here's the conclusion, which is what makes me think that we're all talking about the same thing:

We therefore think that rhodanines and related scaffolds should not be regarded as problematic or promiscuous binders per se. However, it is important to note that the intermolecular interaction profile of these scaffolds makes them prone to bind to a large number of targets with weak or moderate affinity. It may be that the observed moderate affinities of rhodanines and related compounds, e.g. in screening campaigns, has been overinterpreted in the past, and that these compounds have too easily been put forward as lead compounds for further development. We suggest that particularly strong requirements, i.e. affinity in the lower nanomolar range and proven selectivity for the target, are applied in the further assessment of rhodanines and related compounds. A generalized "condemnation" of these chemotypes, however, appears inadequate and would deprive medicinal chemists from attractive building blocks that possess a remarkably high density of intermolecular interaction points.

That's it, right there: the tendency to bind off-target, as noted by these authors, is one of the main reasons that these compounds are regarded with suspicion in the drug industry. We know that we can't test for everything, so when you have one of these structures, you're always fearful of what else it can do once it gets into an animal (or a human). Those downstream factors - stability, pharmacokinetics, toxicity - aren't even addressed in this paper, which is all about screening hits. And that's another source of the bad reputation, for industry people: too many times, people who aren't so worried about those qualities have screening commercial compound collections, come up with rhodanines, and published them as potential drug leads, when (as this paper illustrates), you have to be careful even using them as tool compounds. Given a choice, we'd just rather work on something else. . .

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | Drug Development | The Scientific Literature

December 1, 2011

Nevirapine: Not Chiral. Paper: Not Right. Editorial Staff: Not Doing Their Job

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Readers may remember a now-retracted paper that I first blogged about here, the one that claimed to have isolated the reverse transcriptase inhibitor nevirapine as a natural product. Moreover, it claimed that the isolated material was chiral, which would have been very interesting indeed if it were true. (And, as that last post says, would have been worth making a big point of, if the authors really had understood what they were claiming).

Now a group from Manchester has weighed in on that topic. And what they find is what anyone who'd examined the field should have expected: that the nevirapine molecule, although capable of existing in two chiral forms, equilibrates between them on a time scale of seconds at room temperature. Isolating the atropisomers by standard means is not possible.

So everything about that original Tetrahedron paper was wrong; it never should have made it through the review process. And that's why I highlight such things - not to heap scorn on the original authors, which doesn't do that much good, but to heap it on the people who let such papers into print. Reviewers and editors are supposed to notice when a paper has made very unusual claims, and they're supposed to ask the authors to back them up. But the folks at Tetrahedron were asleep at the switch when this one came through. It's important for them (and other editorial staffs) not to let that happen, and it's important for a journal's readers to realize that it can.

Addendum - as an aside, I note that one of this blog's entries (the second link above) is cited in the references of this latest paper. I'm glad to be a cite-able source!

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Natural Products | The Scientific Literature

November 4, 2011

Table Of Content Graphics, Mocked

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Someone has to make fun of lousy graphical abstracts in science journals. And apparently this is that person. I've no idea who this is, but they're helping, in their way, to make the world a better place.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 12, 2011

The Scientific Literature Gets Kicked Around

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

It seems that the credibility of the scientific literature has been taking a beating recently. This has come about for several reasons, and through several different motivations. I'll get one of the most important out of the way first - politics. While this has been a problem for a long time, there's been a really regrettable tendency in US politics the last few years, a split across broadly left/right lines. Cultural and policy disagreements have led to many on the left claiming the Dispassionate Endorsement of Settled Science, while others on the right end up complaining that it's nothing of the sort, just political biases given a quick coat of paint. Readers will be able to sort several ongoing controversies into that framework.

Political wrangling keeps adding fuel to the can-we-trust-the-literature argument, but it would still be a big issue without it. Consider the headlines that the work of John Ioannidis draws. And there's the attention being paid to the number of retractions, suspicions of commercial bias in the medical literature, the problems of reproducibility of cutting-edge results, and to round it all off, several well-publicized cases of fraud. No, even after you subtract the political ax-grinding, there's a lot of concern left over (as there should be). There are some big medical and public policy decisions to be made based on what the scientific community has been able to figure out, so the first question to ask is whether we've really figured these things out or not.

A couple of recent articles prompted me to think about all this today. The Economist has a good overview of the Duke cancer biomarker scandal, with attention to the broader issues that it raises. And Ben Goldacre has this piece in The Guardian, highlighting this paper in Nature Neuroscience. It points out that far too many papers in the field are using improper statistics when comparing differences-between-differences. As everyone should realize, you can have a statistically significant effect under Condition A, and at the same time a lack of a statistically significant effect under Condition B on the same system. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the difference between using Condition A versus Condition B is statistically significant. You need to go further (usually ANOVA) to be able to say that. The submission guidelines for Nature Neuroscience itself make this clear, as do the guidelines for plenty of other journals. But it appears that a huge number of authors go right ahead and draw the statistically invalid comparison anyway, which means that the referees and editors aren't catching it, either. This is not the sort of thing that builds confidence.

So the questions about the reliability of the literature are going to continue, with things like this to keep everyone slapping their foreheads. One can hope that we'll end up with better, more reliable publications when all this is over. But will it ever really be over?

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 8, 2011

Publishing, Perishing, Buying and Selling

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's another article in the Guardian that makes some very good points about the way we judge scientific productivity by published papers. My favorite line of all: "To have "written" 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being rather shameful." I couldn't have put it better, and I couldn't agree more. And this part is just as good:

Not long ago, Imperial College's medicine department were told that their "productivity" target for publications was to "publish three papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least five.″ The effect of instructions like that is to reduce the quality of science and to demoralise the victims of this sort of mismanagement.

The only people who benefit from the intense pressure to publish are those in the publishing industry.

Working in industry feels like more of a luxury than ever when I hear about such things. We have our own idiotic targets, to be sure - but the ones that really count are hard to argue with: drugs that people will pay us money for. Our customers (patients, insurance companies, what have you) don't care a bit about our welfare, and they have no interest in keeping our good will. But they pay us money anyway, if we have something to offer that's worthwhile. There's nothing like a market to really get you down to reality.

Comments (26) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | The Scientific Literature

August 31, 2011

The Finest Retraction Notice Ever?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

RetractionWatch has this gem from the Journal of Clinical Microbiology. My favorite part is midway through: "Moreover, we realized after our article had been published that major parts of the text had been plagiarized almost verbatim. . .".

Oh, yeah. There is that. But there's more at the link. The RetractionWatch people are trying to get more details, but I wish them luck. This looks like one of those things that no one is going to be very happy to talk about. . .

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

August 30, 2011

Why Isn't There an ArXiv For Chemistry?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Nature has an article on the 20th anniversary of the ArXiv preprint server by its founder Paul Ginsparg. That's gradually worked its way through many parts of physics and mathematics to become a major route for releasing scientific results. (They're now getting about 7,000 submissions a month, with a million downloads a week). But many areas of science remain untouched:

Physicists were quick to adopt widespread sharing of electronic preprints, but other researchers remain reluctant to do so. Fields vary widely in their attitudes to data and ideas before formal review, and in choosing to share electronic preprints, each community will have to develop policies and protocols best suited to their users. A talk I gave in 1997 to a group of biologists helped catalyse the resource now known as PubMedCentral — run by the US National Institutes of Health. I served on the initial advisory board, which soon decided not to host any unrefereed materials, even carefully quarantined, in part for fear of losing essential publisher participation. There remain many legitimate reasons for individual researchers to prefer to delay dissemination, from uncertainty over correctness, to retaining extra time for follow-ups, to sociological differences in the way publication is regarded — in certain fields, the research somehow doesn't count until peer reviewed.

No community that has adopted arXiv usage has renounced it, however, so the growth has been inexorable. . .

But back in its early days, it looked like it would be even more inexorable than that:

The idea that print journals had outlived their usefulness was already in the air in the early 1990s. David Mermin memorably wrote in Physics Today in 1991: “The time is overdue to abolish journals and reorganize the way we do business.”1 By the mid 1990s, it seemed unthinkable that free and unfettered access to non-refereed papers on arXiv would continue to coexist indefinitely with quality-controlled but subscription-based publications. Fifteen years on, researchers continue to access both, successfully compartmentalizing their different roles in scholarly communication and reward structures.

The transition to article formats and features better suited to modern technology than to print on paper has also been surprisingly slow. Page markup formats, such as PDF, have only grudgingly given way to XML-based ones that support features such as manipulable graphics, dynamic views, linked annotations and semantic markup. . .

Well, in chemistry, that transition has been even slower. Our field is still very much dominated by the societies (ACS, RSC, etc.) and the commercial publishers like Elsevier, Nature, Wiley, etc. When's the last time - when's the first time - you heard of a significant organic chemistry paper appearing anywhere else? There's absolutely no equivalent of the ArXiv system, and although I know that the question has been asked before, I'll ask it again: why not? If someone had started such a thing back in the early 1990s, would it (could it) have taken off? Or are there other factors that would have kept it from doing so (the same ones as now?)

Comments (51) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 24, 2011

What Are Impact Factors Doing to Chinese Science?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's a useful (and rather brave) editorial from Chinese chemist Nai-Xing Wang in Nature. He's pointing out that the government's funding agencies are taking a crude and harmful approach to who gets research support: publish, and publish according to their schemes, or flippin' well perish:

The biggest problem remains the obsession with journal impact factors. Generally speaking, articles in journals with high impact factors are judged to appeal most to readers, but not every paper published in a high-impact-factor journal is high quality, and papers published in lower-ranked journals are never worthless. Yet some administrators in China take a very crude approach: high-impact-factor publications mean excellent work.

Research proposals are judged according to the impact factor of a scientist's previous publications. (And referees are usually selected on these criteria too.) Worse, the salaries of my chemistry colleagues go up or down depending on a complex mathematical formula based on the impact factor of the journals in which we publish our work — which we must supply in a detailed list.

Now, this sort of thing has been going on around the scientific world for a while, and it's going to be hard to put a complete stop to it. But the Chinese system that's described is about the most blatant that I've come across. The effects are pernicious:

If a high impact factor is the only goal of chemistry research, then chemistry is no longer science. It is changed to a field of fame and game. There are other effects too. Administrators in almost every university and research institute like to evaluate researchers by their papers at the end of each year. As a result, chemists often choose easy research topics that can be written up inside a year. . .

You get what you subsidize; I don't think that law is ever broken. And if the Chinese government wants people to crank out lots of papers in what they feel are high-end journals, well, that's what people will do. But if they want something useful to come out of all that effort, well, things might need to be adjusted a bit. But "useful" is a slippery word. For the people who are gainfully employed in keeping the current system running, it's just about as useful as it can be the way it is.

Comments (26) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

August 11, 2011

Scientific Retractions: A Growth Industry?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article based on data from Thomson Reuters on the frequency of retracted papers. It seems to be increasing dramatically:

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.

Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide.

They mention Retraction Watch, as well they should. But ten years ago, would there have been enough new material to keep that blog running? Pharmalot has some more from its founder about what might be going on. There are, of course, more journals than ever these days, and many of them are junk. But it's not the bottom-tier journals that are driving this trend, I'd think, since honestly, when does anyone ever retract a paper in one of them? Consistent with that view, this bar chart of PubMed retractions by journal is heavily weighted towards the big dogs. A lousy or nonreproducible paper in one of the top journals is more likely to be of enough interest to attract attention, but one in J. Whatever will just sit there.

No, when you look at this chart, it appears that retractions-per-papers-published have been climbing, so the answer must be some combination of more mistakes, more fraud, or better policing. Retractions due to fraud seem to be where most of the growth is, according to this study, so that takes us down to the latter two explanations.

Software has definitely made the lazier sorts of fraud easier to detect, automatically flagging copy-and-paste hack jobs. But those aren't the kinds of things that show up in the better journals, are they? We may be seeing a mix of greater incentive to commit fraud and a rise in skepticism among readers. There have been enough cases, enough highly-publicized retractions and scandals, that more people may be willing to wonder if some exciting new result is true at all.

That's not a bad thing. The rise in fraud is a bad thing, but a corresponding rise in scrutiny is the only thing that's going to cure it. There are always a few pathological types out there that kind of know that they're going to get caught and kind of don't care. Those we shall always have with us, and not much is going to discourage them. But as for the rest of the fraudsters, the thought that they have a better chance of being found out and punished should give them something to think about.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

August 1, 2011

Chinese Research: Not Quite the Juggernaut?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A perennial topic around here has been the state of scientific research in China (and other up-and-coming nations). There's no doubt that the number of scientific publications from China has been increasing (be sure to read the comments to that post; there's more to it than I made of it). But many of these papers, on closer inspection, are junk, and are published in junk journals of no impact whatsoever. Mind you, that's not an exclusively Chinese problem - Sturgeon's Law is hard to get away from, and there's a lot of mediocre (and worse than mediocre) stuff coming out of every country's scientific enterprise.

But what about patents? The last couple of years have seen many people predicting that China would soon be leading the world in patent applications as well, which can be the occasion for pride or hand-wringing, depending on your own orientation. But there's a third response: derision. And that's what Anil Gupta and Haiyan Wang provide in the Wall Street Journal. They think that most of these filings are junk:

But more than 95% of the Chinese applications were filed domestically with the State Intellectual Property Office—and the vast majority cover "innovations" that make only tiny changes on existing designs. A better measure is to look at innovations that are recognized outside China—at patent filings or grants to China-origin inventions by the world's leading patent offices, the U.S., the EU and Japan. On this score, China is way behind.

The most compelling evidence is the count of "triadic" patent filings or grants, where an application is filed with or patent granted by all three offices for the same innovation. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, there were only 473 triadic patent filings from China versus 14,399 from the U.S., 14,525 from Europe, and 13,446 from Japan.

Starkly put, in 2010 China accounted for 20% of the world's population, 9% of the world's GDP, 12% of the world's R&D expenditure, but only 1% of the patent filings with or patents granted by any of the leading patent offices outside China. Further, half of the China-origin patents were granted to subsidiaries of foreign multinationals. . .

The authors are perfectly willing to admit that this probably will change with time. But time can make things worse, too: as this editorial in Science last year made clear, the funding of research in China has some real problems. The authors of that piece are professors at two large Chinese universities, and would presumably know what they're talking about. For the biggest grants, they say:

. . .the key is the application guidelines that are issued each year to specify research areas and projects. Their ostensible purpose is to outline “national needs.” But the guidelines are often so narrowly described that they leave little doubt that the “needs” are anything but national; instead, the intended recipients are obvious. Committees appointed by bureaucrats in the funding agencies determine these annual guidelines. For obvious reasons, the chairs of the committees often listen to and usually cooperate with the bureaucrats. “Expert opinions” simply reflect a mutual understanding between a very small group of bureaucrats and their favorite scientists. This top-down approach stifles innovation and makes clear to everyone that the connections with bureaucrats and a few powerful scientists are paramount. . .

Given time, this culture could be changed. Or it could just become more entrenched as the amounts of money become larger and larger and the stakes become higher. China could end up as the biggest scientific and technological powerhouse the world has ever seen - or it could end up never living up to its potential and wasting vast resources on cargo-cult theatrics. It's way too early to say. But if many of those Chinese patents are just being written because someone's figured out that the way to get money and prestige is to file patents - never mind if they're good for anything - then that's not a good sign.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

July 5, 2011

Fakery, As Revealed By Figures

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I note via Retraction Watch that the Journal of Biological Chemistry has issued retraction notices for four papers published from the group of the late Maria Diverse-Pierluissi, at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. One of their readers looked over the papers (which had been cited a few times, without making any particular huge impact, it seems), and found that some of the figures (Western blots and so on) repeat, even though they're supposed to represent different things (e.g., Figure 3A and 3C here).

Mt. Sinai told the Retraction Watch people that an internal investigation turned up the evidence of misconduct, and that the matter has been referred to the NIH, which funded the work. What those duplicate figures make me wonder, though, is how long it'll be before we have a plagiarized-figure search tool, in the same way that we have plagiarized-text tools running? There's already something similar out there - TinEye - and I'm sure that much nicer systems are available for a fee. Have any scientific journals implemented something like this?

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

June 30, 2011

Transcendental Meditation: Hold That Paper!

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I couldn't resist mentioning this one: the Archives of Internal Medicine was set to publish a paper showing a benefit for transcendental meditation in heart attack and stroke. Word was already out in the press - in the UK, the Telegraph had already published a story, with a quote from one of the paper's lead authors (from, ahem, the Maharishi University of Management) that the effect seen was as great or greater than any pharmaceutical intervention.

I don't have a link up to that particular newspaper report; its URL is no longer valid. That's because twelve minutes before the paper was set to be published online, the journal pulled it. (Other sources still have their stories up). We still don't know quite what the problem was. Nature got this statement:

“It became apparent that there was additional data not included in the manuscript that was about to be published, and the editor of Archives thought that the information was significant enough that it needed to be included as part of the paper, and then re-analyzed and verified, so she made the last-minute decision not to publish it. . .It’s an unusual situation, but the bottom line is that our journal wants to make sure that the information we put out is as accurate as can be.”

I'm glad to hear it. Larry Husten at Forbes has the data from the paper, and has a lot of questions. We'll see how things look when (and if) it ever appears. But for now, if you're looking for the latest anyone has ever pulled a paper before publication, we may well have the record.

Update: here's an excellent report on this at Retraction Watch.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Snake Oil | The Scientific Literature

June 7, 2011

Even Worse Than Reality

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I found this article in The American Scholar via Arts and Letters Daily, entitled "Flacking for Big Pharma". As you might have possibly guessed from the title, it's a broadside against the advertising practices of the drug industry, and particularly against its interactions with physicians and the medical journals.

And I'll say up front that the piece is not, in fact, completely wrong. It's probably not even mostly wrong. There really are big problems in these areas, such as too-aggressive promotion, minimization of side effects, too many payments to "key opinion leaders", too many studies that don't see the light of day, and so on. And these things really do lower the respect that people have for the drug industry - assuming, by this point, that there's much respect left. But overall, this article is sort of a summary version of Marcia Angell's book, for people who would like to hate the drug industry but find themselves pressed for time. And as such, it manages to get some important things wrong in the process of getting some things right.

For example, it makes much of subgroup analysis of clinical trials, but as a way for drug companies to pull the wool over readers' eyes. I wonder how much this really happens, though, since overzealous data mining of a trial that wasn't powered to generate such conclusion is (you'd think) a well-known pitfall by now. Perhaps not, though. But the example given in the article is BiDil:

BiDil proponents published studies that supported their claim of a racially mediated genetic anomaly that was addressed by BiDil, making it an ideal drug for blacks but not for whites.. . .

NitroMed won FDA approval of a new trial that included only 1,050 black subjects, with no white subjects to provide comparison data. Furthermore, BiDil was not tested alone, but only in concert with heart medications that are already known to work, such as diuretics, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (or ACE) inhibitors. The published results of the trial were heralded as a success when subjects taking the drug combinations that included BiDil enjoyed 43 percent fewer heart-failure deaths.

. . .excluding whites was a medically illogical but financially strategic move because it eliminated the possibility that the drug would test well in whites, thereby robbing NitroMed of its already thin rationale for calling BiDil a black drug. The “black” label was crucial, because BiDil’s patent covering use in all ethnic groups expired in 2007, but the patent for blacks only allows NitroMed to profit from it until 2020. BiDil is a case study in research methodology “flaws” that mask strategies calculated to make a dodgy drug look good on paper, for profit.

But this doesn't appear to be correct. First off, as the article itself mentioned earlier, the BiDil combination was originally tested (twice) in racially mixed (in fact, I believe, mostly white) trial groups. Secondly, the 1,050-patient trial in black patients was done with other therapies because to do otherwise would be unethical (see below). And what you wouldn't realize by reading all this is the BiDil, in fact, was a failure. No one's making piles of profits on BiDil until 2020, especially not NitroMed. You wouldn't even know that NitroMed itself gave up trying to sell BiDil three years ago, and that the company itself was acquired (for a whopping 80 cents a share) in 2009.

Now, about those placebo-controlled trials. This article makes much of a British Medical Journal satire from 2003 on how to make a drug look good. But it's confused:

A placebo, such as a sham or “sugar” pill, has no active ingredient, and, although placebos may evoke some poorly understood medical benefits, called the “placebo effect,” they are weak: medications tend to outperform placebos. Placebo studies are not ethical when a treatment already exists for a disorder, because it means that some in the study go untreated. However, if you care only that your new drug shines in print, testing against placebo is the way to go.

Well, which is it? We can't, in fact, run placebo-controlled trials just to "shine in print" when there's a standard of care, you know. You can only do that when there's no standard of care at all. And in those cases, what exactly should we use as a comparison? Using nothing at all (no pills, nothing) would, in fact, make our drugs look even better than they are, because of that placebo effect. This is a specious objection.

And when there's a standard of care that a new drug will be added to (as was the case with BiDil), then you actually do have to run it with those therapies in place, at least when you get to Phase III. The FDA (and the medical community) want to know how your drug is going to perform in the real world, and if patients out in that real world are taking other medications, well, you can't pretend that they aren't.

In another section, the article makes much of the Merck/Elsevier affair, where Elsevier's "Excerpta Medica" division set up some not-really-journals in Australia (blogged about here). That was, in fact, disgraceful (as I said at the time), but disgraceful apparently isn't enough:

. . .Elsevier, the Dutch publisher of both The Lancet and Gray’s Anatomy, sullied its pristine reputation by publishing an entire sham medical journal devoted solely to promoting Merck products. Elsevier publishes 2,000 scientific journals and 20,000 book-length works, but its Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which looks just like a medical journal, and was described as such, was not a peer-reviewed medical journal but rather a collection of reprinted articles that Merck paid Elsevier to publish. At least some of the articles were ghostwritten, and all lavished unalloyed praise on Merck drugs, such as its troubled painkiller Vioxx. There was no disclosure of Merck’s sponsorship. Librarian and analyst Jonathan Rochkind found five similar mock journals, also paid for by Merck and touted as genuine. The ersatz journals are still being printed and circulated, according to Rochkind, and 50 more Elsevier journals appear to be Big Pharma advertisements passed off as medical publications. Rochkind’s forensic librarianship has exposed the all-but-inaccessible queen of medical publishing as a high-priced call girl.

Fifty journals? Really? As far as I can tell, that figure comes from this analysis at the time, and seems to be mostly nonce publications, one-off conference proceedings, and the like. There is a whole list of "Australasian Journal of So-and-Sos", which would be the same reprint advertorials as the other Excerpta Medica stuff, but do these still exist? (Did all of them on the list, in fact, ever actually publish anything?)

You'd get the impression that Elsevier is (or was, until Big Pharma came along) an absolute shining pinnacle of the medical establishment - but, with apologies to the people I know who work there, that is unfortunately not the case. They're big, and they're very far from the worst scientific publishers out there, but some of their titles are, in fact, not adding much to the total of human knowledge. Nor has the conduct of their marketing department always been above reproach. But no, this has to be built up to look even worse than it is.

The irritating thing is that there's plenty to criticize about this industry without misrepresenting reality. But does that sell?

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Press Coverage | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature | Why Everyone Loves Us

Murine Viruses and Chronic Fatigue: Does the Story Continue

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, one day after writing an obit for the XMRV story comes this abstract from Retrovirology. The authors, from Cornell and SUNY-Buffalo, say that they've detected other murine retrovirus transcripts from CFS patients (but not in most controls), and that these are more similar to those reported in last year's Lo and Alter paper in PNAS than they are to XMRV itself.

So perhaps the story continues, and what a mess it is at this point. I continue to think that the XMRV hypothesis itself is in serious trouble, but murine retroviruses as a class are still worth following up on. This is tough work, though, because of the twin problems of detection and contamination, and it's going to be easy for people to fool themselves.

Meanwhile, Retraction Watch has more on Science's "Expression of Concern" that I wrote about yesterday. It appears that the journal asked the authors to retract the paper (so says the Wall Street Journal, anyway) but that co-author Judy Mikovits turned them down (as might have been expected from her previous stands in this area). Science released their editorial note early because of the WSJ piece.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases | The Scientific Literature

June 6, 2011

XMRV and Chronic Fatigue: Down For More Than the Third Time

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I meant to blog on this late last week, but (in case you haven't seen it) the whole putative link between XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome seems now to be falling apart. If you want to see the whole saga via my blog posts and the links in them, then here you go: October 2009 - January 2010 - February 2010 - July 2010 - January 2011. At that last check-in, the whole thing was looking more like an artifact.

And now Science is out with a paper that strongly suggests that the entire XMRV virus is an artifact. It looks like something that's produced by the combination of two proviruses during passaging of the cells where it was detected, and the paper suggests that other human-positive samples are the result of contamination. Another paper is (again) unable to replicate detection of XMRV in dozens of samples which had previously been reported as positive, and finds some low levels of murine virus sequences in commercial reagents, which also fits with the contamination hypothesis.

With these results in print, Science has attached an "Editorial Expression of Concern" to the original 2009 XMRV/CFS paper, which touched off this whole controversy. My take: while there are still some studies ongoing, at this point it's going to take a really miraculous result to bring this hypothesis back to life. It certainly looks dead from here.

There will be also be some people who ask whether Science did the world a favor by publishing the original paper in the first place. But on balance, I'd rather have things like this get published than not, although in hindsight it's always easy to say that more experiments should have been done. The same applies to the arsenic-bacteria paper, another one of Science's recent bombshells. I'm not believing that one, either, at this point - not until I see a lot more supporting data - but in the end, I'm not sad that it was published, either. I think we're better off erring a bit on the wild-ideas end of the scale than clamping down too hard. That said, you do have to wonder if Science in particular is pushing things a bit too hard, itself. While I think that these ideas deserve a hearing, it doesn't necessarily have to be there.

Comments (18) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases | The Scientific Literature

June 2, 2011

Biomarkers, Revisited. Unfortunately.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Your genome - destiny, right? That's what some of us thought - every disease was going to have one or more associated genes, those genes would code for new drug targets, and we'd all have a great time picking them off one by one. It didn't work out that way, of course, but there are still all these papers out there in the literature, linking Gene A with the chances of getting Disease B. So how much are those worth?

While we're at it, everyone also wanted (and still wants) biomarkers of all kinds. Not just genes, but protein and metabolite levels in the blood or other tissue to predict disease risk or progression. I can't begin to estimate how much work has been going into biomarker research in this business - a good biomarker can clarify your clinical trial design, regulatory picture, and eventual marketing enormously - if you can find one. Plenty of them have been reported in the literature. How much are those worth, too?

Not a whole heck of a lot, honestly, according to a new paper in JAMA by John Ioannidis and Orestes Panagiotou. They looked at the disease marker highlights from the last 20 years or so, the 35 papers that had been cited at least 400 times. How good do the biomarkers in those papers have to be to be useful? An increase of 35% in the chance of getting the targeted condition? Sorry - only one-fifth of the them rise to that level, when you go back and see how they've held up in the real world.

Subsequent studies, in fact, very rarely show anything as strong as the original results - 29 of the 35 biomarkers show a less robust association after meta-analysis of all the follow-up reports, as compared to what was claimed at first. And those later studies tend to be larger and more powered - in only 3 cases was the highly cited study the largest one that had been run, and only twice did the largest study show a higher effect measure than the original highly cited one. Only 15 of the 35 biomarkers were nominally statistically significant in the largest studies of them.

Ioannidis has been hitting the literature's unreliability for some time now, and I think that it's hard to dispute his points. The first thought that any scientist should have when an interesting result is reported is "Great! Wonder if it's true?" There are a lot of reasons for things not to be (see that earlier post for a discussion of them), and we need to be aware of how often they operate.

Comments (25) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

May 17, 2011

Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Yesterday's look into the Google Ngram data set brought up a discussion in the comments on how good the numbers are in it (and in other large datasets). "Garbage in, garbage out" is as true a statement as ever, so it's a real worry. (Even if the data were perfect, the numbers could still be misused and misinterpreted, of course).

An e-mail from a reader pointed me to another example of this sort of thing. The NIH Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC) has a collection of known pharmaceutically active compounds for use in screening and target ID. This is a good idea, and the same sort of thing is done internally in the drug industry. But the ChemConnector blog has some questions about how robust the dataset is. The rough estimate is that between 5 and 10% of the 7600+ structures are messed up in some way (stereochemistry, salt form, the dreaded pentavalent carbon, and so on).

Read the comments there for some interesting back-and-forthing with the NIH people. The NCGC folks realize that they have some problems, and are willing to put in the work to help clean things up. The problem is, they'd already published on this list, calling it "definitive, complete, and nonredundant", which now seems to be a bit premature. . .

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

May 16, 2011

A Google Oddity

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A comment to the last post mentioned that if you search the word "biotechnology" in Google's Ngram search engine, something odd happens. There's the expected rise in the 1970s and 80s, but there's also a bump in the early 1900s, for no apparent reason. Curious about this, I ran several other high-tech phrases through and found the exact same effect.

Here's a good example, with some modern physics phrases. And you get the same thing if you search "nanotechnology", "ribosome", "atomic force microscope", "RNA interference", "laser", "gene transfer", "mass spectrometer" or "nuclear magnetic resonance". There's always a jump back in exactly the same period on the early 1900s.
So what's going on? I can understand some OCR errors, but why do these things show up in this specific Edwardian-age window? Can anyone at Google shed any light on this?

Comments (28) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: General Scientific News | The Scientific Literature

Ups and Downs

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I was thinking the other day that I never remembered hearing the phrase "Big Pharma" when I first got a job in this business (1989). Now I have some empirical proof, thanks to the Google Labs Ngram Viewer, that the phrase has only come into prominence more recently. (Fair warning: you can waste substantial amounts of time messing with this site). Here's the incidence rate of "big pharma" in English-language books from 1988 to 2000.big%20pharma%20graph%2Cjpg.jpg
It comes from nowhere, blips to life in 1992, doesn't even really get off the baseline until 1994 or so, and then takes off. (The drops in 2005 and 2008 remain unexplained - did the log phase of its growth end in 2004?)

Update: that graph holds for the uncapitalized version of the phrase. If you put the words in caps, you get the even more dramatic takeoff shown below:

To be fair, though, there seems to have been a general rise in Big Pharma-related literature during that period. Try out this graph, comparing mentions of Merck, Pfizer, and Novartis since 1970. The last-named, of course, didn't even exist until the early 1990s, but they (like the others) have spent the time since then zipping right up, with no apparent end in sight. (Merck, especially - what's with those guys?) And what accounts for this? Business books? Investing guides? Speculation is welcome.

Note: the above paragraph was written before realizing that the Google Ngram search is case-sensitive - so, as was pointed out in the comments, I was picking up on people not caring about capitalization more than anything else. Below is the correct graph, with initial capitals in the search, and it makes more sense. Merck still is the king of book mentions, though, for all the coverage that Pfizer gets.

I'll finish off with this one, using a longer time scale. Yes, folks, for better or worse, it appears that the phrase "organic chemistry" peaked out between book covers around 1950, and has been declining ever since. Meanwhile, "total synthesis" starting rising during the World War II era (penicillin?), and kept on moving up until a peak around 1980. Interestingly, things turned around in 2000 or so, and especially since 2003. And this can't be ascribed to some sort of general surge in chemistry publications - look at the "organic chemistry" line during the same period. Is there some other field that's adopted the phrase?

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Industry History | General Scientific News | The Scientific Literature

May 9, 2011

What Medicinal Chemists Really Make

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Chemists who don't (or don't yet) work in drug discovery often wonder just what sort of chemistry we do over here. There are a lot of jokes about methyl-ethyl-butyl-futile, which have a bit of an edge to them for people just coming out of a big-deal total synthesis group in academia. They wonder if they're really setting themselves up for a yawn-inducing lab career of Suzuki couplings and amide formation, gradually becoming leery of anything that takes more than three steps to make.

Well, now there's some hard data on that topic. The authors took the combined publication output from their company, Pfizer, and GSK, as published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Bioorganic Med Chem Letters and Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, starting in 2008. And they analyzed this set for what kinds of reactions were used, how long the synthetic routes were, and what kinds of compounds were produced. Their motivation?

. . .discussions with other chemists have revealed that many of our drug discovery colleagues outside the synthetic community perceive our syntheses to consist of typically six steps, predominantly composed of amine deprotections to facilitate amide formation reactions and Suzuki couplings to produce biaryl derivatives. These “typical” syntheses invariably result in large, flat, achiral derivatives destined for screening cascades. We believed these statements to be misconceptions, or at the very least exaggerations, but noted there was little if any hard evidence in the literature to support our case.

Six steps? You must really want those compounds, eh? At any rate, their data set ended up with about 7300 reactions and about 3600 compounds. And some clear trends showed up. For example, nearly half the reactions involved forming carbon-heteroatom bonds, with half of those (22% of the total) being acylations. mostly amide formation. But only about one tenth of the reactions were C-C bond-forming steps (40% of those were Suzuki-style couplings and 18% were Sonogoshira reactions). One-fifth were protecting group manipulations (almost entirely on COOH and amine groups), and eight per cent were heterocycle formation, and everything else was well down into the single digits.

There are some interesting trends in those other reactions, though. Reduction reactions are much more common than oxidations - the frequency of nitro-to-amine reductions is one factor behind that, followed by other groups down to amines (few of these are typically run in the other direction). Among those oxidations, alcohol-to-aldehyde is the favorite. Outside of changes in reduction state, alcohol-to-halide is the single most favorite functional group transformation, followed by acid to acid chloride, both of which make sense from their reactivity in later steps.

Overall, the single biggest reaction is. . .N-acylation to an amide. So that part of the stereotype is true. At the bottom of the list, with only one reaction apiece, were N-alkylation of an aniline, benzylic/allylic oxidation, and alkene oxidation. Sulfonation, nitration, and the Heck reaction were just barely represented as well.

Analyzing the compounds instead of the reactions, they found that 99% of the compounds contained at least one aromatic ring (with almost 40% showing an aryl-aryl linkage) and over half have an amide, which totals aren't going to do much to dispel the stereotypes, either. The most popular heteroaromatic ring is pyridine, followed by pyrimidine and then the most popular of the five-membered ones, pyrazole. 43% have an aliphatic amine, which I can well believe (in fact, I'm surprised that it's not even higher). Most of those are tertiary amines, and the most-represented of those are pyrrolidines, followed closely by piperazines.

In other functionality, about a third of the compounds have at least one fluorine atom in them, and 30% have an aryl chloride. In contrast to the amides, there are only about 10% of the compounds with sulfonamides. 35% have an aryl ether (mostly methoxy), 10% have an aliphatic alcohol (versus only 5% with a phenol). The least-represented functional groups (of the ones that show up at all!) are carbonate, sulfoxide, alkyl chloride, and aryl nitro, followed by amidines and thiols. There's not a single alkyl bromide or aliphatic nitro in the bunch.

The last part of the paper looks at synthetic complexity. About 3000 of the compounds were part of traceable synthetic schemes, and most of these were 3 and 4 steps long. (The distribution has a pretty long tail, though, going out past 10 steps). Molecular weights tend to peak at between 350 and 550, and clogP peaks at around 3.5 to 5. These all sound pretty plausible to me.

Now that we've got a reasonable med-chem snapshot, though, what does it tell us? I'm going to use a whole different post to go into that, but I think that my take-away was that, for the most part, we have a pretty accurate mental picture of the sorts of compounds we make. But is that a good picture, or not?

Comments (24) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | Drug Development | Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

May 6, 2011

The Top 100 Chemists?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I'm never sure of how useful these rankings are, but here's Thomson Reuters' rankings of the top 100 chemists of the last ten years. This is based on publications and their impact/citation rate.

Looking over the list, I think that there are some artifacts in it, and boy, don't metal-organic frameworks and nanotech just rate like crazy? But it's an interesting starting point for discussion, especially when you note how (relatively) few organic and synthetic organic chemists make the upper reaches. Thoughts?

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 2, 2011

Great Moments in Journal Editing

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I don't know if this DOI link resolves yet - or if the problem will be fixed by the time it does. But for now, in the "Articles in Press" queue over at Drug Discovery Today, they have one whose title reads like this:

Utility of protein structures in overcoming ADMET-related issues of drug-like compounds[1. AU: You use ADMET-relevant throughout manuscript. Would you like to change this to ADMET-relevant too?]

Well, would you? They're waiting for someone to answer them, apparently.

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 29, 2011

Keep On Scrollin'

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've been browsing through my journal RSS feeds, and a question occurs to me. When you're scanning through the current literature, what sort of paper makes you most likely to keep scrolling? What kind of work are you least likely to actually read?

We'll stipulate that you're looking at a journal or subject that's relevant to your field - I read a lot of stuff, but I'm most certainly not going to slow down to look over (say) a theoretical paper calculating the stability of isomeric inorganic complexes. But that said, there are things that make you slow down while going through the abstracts, and there are things that absolutely made you speed up.

My particular biases are to walk more quickly past the following sorts of titles, which have been only slightly exaggerated for effect. And you?

"Synthesis of A Natural Product That You Don't Care About, Using Methods That Bore You"

"Slight Enantiomeric Excess Realized Through Use Of A Humungous Catalyst That Takes Nine Steps To Make All By Itself"

"Nanorods Attached to Nanoplates by Nanosprings: Progress Toward a Nanomattress"

"Green Chemistry, Part 87: A Novel Reagent to Prepare Nitriles from Oximes"

"Isolation Of Known Terpenoid Natural Products From Weeds In Our Back Yard"

Comments (46) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 28, 2011

Just A Few More Month's Work, That's All I'm Asking Here

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's the cry of someone who's been jerked around by too many journal referee reports. Hidde Ploegh of the Whitehead Institute has a piece in Nature News called "End the Wasteful Tyranny of Reviewer Experiments". That could have just possibly have been phrased more diplomatically, but I know what he's talking about.

Too often, reviewers try to show that they're fulfilling their responsibilities by requesting additional work from the authors of a paper under consideration. This happens more and more as you move up the hierarchy of journals, as both the novelty of the work and the incentive to publish it increase. No one's going to exert themselves too much to get their paper into Acta Retracta, even if some rogue reviewer were to try it, but Science and Nature (among others) can really make you perform tricks.

What this reminds me of is a story about Steve Wozniak, of Apple fame. When he was in college, his dorm had an old TV down in the lobby with a rabbit-ear antenna, which had to be messed with constantly to get a good picture. Woz apparently built a gizmo to fuzz out the reception, and used to sit inconspicuously in the back of the room, trying to see what sort of crazy positions he could twist people into as they held the antenna in what was seemingly the One Perfect Spot.

The referee equivalent is Just One More Experiment, and it's not always justified:

Submit a biomedical-research paper to Nature or other high-profile journals, and a common recommendation often comes back from referees: perform additional experiments. Although such extra work can provide important support for the results being presented, all too frequently it represents instead an entirely new phase of the project, or does not extend the reach of what is reported. It is often expensive and unnecessary, and slows the pace of research to a crawl. Among scientists in my field, there is growing concern that escalating demands by reviewers for the top journals, combined with the increasingly managerial role assigned to editors, now represents a serious flaw in the process of peer review.

Ploegh's point is that too many referees aren't reviewing the paper that they have; they're suggesting a whole new project or phase of research. And some of these wouldn't even affect the results and conclusions of the paper under review very much - they're just "Gosh, wouldn't it be nice if you would also. . ." experiments. The benefit for science, he says, is nowhere near commensurate with the disadvantage of holding up publication, messing with the career prospects of younger investigators, spending extra time and grant money, and so on. His suggestion?

The scientific community should rethink how manuscripts are reviewed. Referees should be instructed to assess the work in front of them, not what they think should be the next phase of the project. They should provide unimpeachable arguments that, where appropriate, demonstrate the study's lack of novelty or probable impact, or that lay bare flawed logic or unwarranted conclusions.

He also suggests that reviewers provide an estimate of the time and cost involved for their suggested experiments, and compare that to their purported benefits. I wouldn't mind seeing editors crack down on this some, either. I've had useful feedback with my own manuscripts, which had identified things that really did need to be shored up. But submitting a paper should not routinely be an exercise in having other people tell you what experiments you should run before you can publish your. When there really is a gap or flaw, naturally, it's appropriate to ask for more, but I agree with Ploegh that a reviewer needs to make a case for such things, rather than just asking for them as a matter of routine.

Ploegh has a larger historical point to make as well. Looking back at the earlier days of , say, molecular biology, you get the impression that if someone sent in an interesting paper that seemed reasonable, it would just get published, without all these trips back to the bench. Somehow, the mechanics of science (and especially scientific publication) have changed. Has it been for the better? Or would we all be better off letting more things through as they stand, if they're clearly presented and logically consistent?

I wonder if journals might consider publishing in this style, while then adding an editorial note about what further experiments had been suggested by reviewers. This would fulfill the function of pointing out potential weak points or areas for further exploration, but without delaying things so much. I don't see this happening - but why not, exactly?

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 26, 2011

Graphical Crankiness

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

And now a brief note from the "trivial but annoying" department, since it's been a couple of years since I last complained about this. Is there any way that we can start a petition, or take up a collection, or do something to make K. C. Nicolaou stop drawing ring systems like this? Coloring the insides of them with gradient fills adds no information and actually obscures elements of the structure.

If all else fails, can we at least send the man a set of Ed Tufte books?

Comments (67) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

So Much For Natural-Product Nevirapine

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Remember that weird Tetrahedron paper from last December? The one that claimed that it isolated the reverse transcriptase inhibitor nevirapine as a natural product from an Indian plant? In chiral form, no less?

Well, the journal would now like to say "Never mind". The lead author has retracted the paper, "due to doubt created in the scientific community on the origin of nevirapine from the seeds of Cleome viscosa". That's an odd way to put it. Isn't it? Doubts that other people might have are irrelevant if you're right, aren't they?

No, this is similar to the classic weasel-word apology, the one that goes on about regretting the way that some people took offense rather than regretting the original action itself. The reason this paper was retracted, surely, was that those doubts in the scientific community were well-founded. This paper made no sense on several levels, and those problems should have been caught immediately. Its publication was an embarrassment for Tetrahedron and for Elsevier.

I think that the reason I get so worked up about these things is the laziness and sloppy thinking involved. Scientific research deserves more than that, and the rest of us deserve more from the people who publish it.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 5, 2011

In Which I Reminisce About the Prins Reaction, Chemical Abstracts, and John Keats

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, this post needs updating. In it I mentioned never running a Prins reaction again since the 1980s, nor any photochemistry, and today what do I find myself doing? Both of them, although not at the same time.

I am, fortunately, not running the Prins this way. But even bringing it up at all recalls to me a key part of my education. When I first joined my graduate school research group, I was put to making some tetrahydropyran systems. I was handed a synthesis, drawn up before my arrival, of how to make the first one, and like most first-year grad students, I gamely dug and and started to work on it.

I should have devoted a bit more thought to it. I won't go into the details, but it was a steppy route that relied, in the final ring-closure step, on getting the cyclic ether to form where one of the partners was a neopentyl center. The organic chemists in the audience will immediately be able to guess just how well that went.

So I beat on it and whacked at it, getting nowhere as I used up my starting material, until I was finally driven to the library. In the spring of 1984, that was a different exercise than it is now, involving the 5-year Chemical Abstracts indices and an awful lot of page flipping. (I haven't so much as touched a bound volume of CA in I don't know how many years now). If you were a nomenclature whiz, you could try looking up your compound, or something like it, in the name index, but a higher-percentage move was often to look up the empirical formula. That gave you a better shot, because (if it was there at all) you could see how CA named your system and work from there.

To my great surprise, the second set of collective indices I checked (the good ol' 9th), yielded a direct hit on an empirical formula, and the name looked like exactly what I had been trying to make. The reference was in Tetrahedron, which we most certainly had on the shelf, and I zipped over to see if there was any detail on how to make the stuff.

There was indeed. A one-stepper Prins cyclization gave just the ring system I'd been trying to make, and that was one step from the intermediate I needed. I just stared at the page, though. I honestly couldn't believe that this was real (as I mentioned, I was in about my second month of grad school lab work). Surely the synthesis I'd been given was the way to make this stuff? Surely the people responsible for it had checked the literature before drawing it up? (After all, it had only taken my a few minutes to find the stuff myself). Surely I couldn't just make the ring in one afternoon using two starting materials I could buy cheaply from Aldrich?

Well, surely I could. And that's just what I did, and got my project moving along until the next interesting difficulty came up a couple of months later. But I still recall standing there in the Duke chemistry library, looking at that journal article "with a wild surmise" that perhaps I should check things out for myself next time instead of just taking everyone else's word. It took a couple more lessons for me to really grasp that principle (Nullius in verba!, but it's helped me out a great deal over the years. I have the 27-year-old photocopy I made that afternoon in front of me now. It's a good reminder.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Graduate School | Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

March 2, 2011

Now, That's An Abstract

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A reader who's attending the International Congress on Heterocyclic Chemistry in Glasgow later this year sent me a note about it. Like many such meetings, they have guidelines for presentation and poster abstracts. But this one was done by someone who's been around the block a few times.

The sample abstract is from a team from the University of Utopia (and in case you're wondering, ".ut" is apparently the internet domain for Utopia). And the authors, in a nice touch, are Black, Schwartz, Nero, Fekete, and Čzerný. (Too bad the other students in the group - Siyah, Dubh, and Musta - couldn't make it onto the list). But here's the text of the thing itself:

Two fundamentally different but complementary transition metal catalyzed chemo-, regio-,diastereo-, enantio-, and grantproposalo-selective approaches to the synthesis of a library of biologically significant nano- and pico-molecules will be presented with the focus on reaction mechanism and egocentric effects. The role of the nature of the metal, ligand, solvent, temperature, time, microwave, nanowave, picowave, ultrasound, hypersound, moon phase, and weather in this catalytic, sustainable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly technology will be discussed in detail.

If nothing else, that's about as grantproposalo-selective as it gets, right there. . .

Comments (30) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 28, 2011

What The Referees Really Think

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I wish that more journals did this! Environmental Microbiology, which I have never looked at before, has published its favorite reviewer comments from the year just passed. They're not tied to the papers that generated them, naturally, but then, many of these manuscripts didn't quite make the cut:

"The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is its terrible writing style."

"I usually try to be nice, but this paper has got to be one of the worst I have read in a long time."

"I suppose that I should be happy that I don't have to spend a lot of time reviewing this dreadful paper, however, I am depressed that people are performing such bad science."

"It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough."

There are plenty more, including many from people who are actually happy about what they had to read (and yes, there are some). Check 'em out!

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 18, 2011

Retractions: Why The Secrecy?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Ben Goldacre has an excellent point here at Bad Science: when a paper gets retracted from a journal, shouldn't everyone know why it's been retracted?

He highlights the experience of the blog Retraction Watch (which I hadn't heard of until now), when they tried to find out why a paper had been pulled from the Annals of Thoracic Surgery. The journal's editor responded to their query by informing them that "it's none of your damn business".

Gotta disagree there, chief. I think that this is actually important information, and that it should be disclosed as much as possible. There are all sorts of reasons for papers to be retracted, ranging from benign to evil, and it's in the interest of readers to know what category things have fallen into. I understand that in some cases papers are the subject of ongoing investigations, so these details aren't always available, but in that case, why not say something like: "The data in Table II have not been reliably reproduced by other workers. While some of the co-authors of the original work have stated that they stand by the results as published, an investigation has begun into the methods and data of this paper, and the lead authors have asked that it be retracted until this matter is concluded".

But that's not the sort of thing we get. Goldacre cites another example from Retraction Watch, concerning this paper from JACS. When the bloggers contacted the lead author, he gave them more details than you could get from the journal about what was wrong with the paper. So why doesn't JACS tell us these things?

Thanks to the Retraction Watch people for taking the time and effort to do this sort of thing. I just wish that it weren't necessary for anyone to do it at all.

Comments (20) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 11, 2011

The Life of a Paper

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Angewandte Chemie recently ran a behind-the-scenes article about their journal, with several interesting bits of information. For one thing, they've gotten a lot more selective over the years, as the number of submissions has gone up. They publish many more papers, total, than they used to, but reject a much higher fraction at the same time. (I've added to that total myself a couple of times!).

Mind you, there are times when that rejection rate should have been even a bit higher, but as you might guess, the article doesn't bring up those awkward moments. There's no insight into the vile puns and other pop-culture references that continue to infest their abstracts, either. Can't have everything.

But I found this chart interesting. These are the download statistics for a particular (unspecified) communication in the journal over time. (Note that they've scrubbed the units on the Y-axis, the wimps).
This confirms what most scientists have figured, that your paper has a brief window to be noticed, and then back in the pile it goes. Back to the background rate, with people coming across it in literature searches once in a while.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 20, 2010

Putting Some Numbers on Peer Review

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since we've been talking about peer review on and off around here, this paper in PLoS One is timely. The authors are putting some numbers on a problem that journal editors have long had to deal with: widely varying reviews from different referees for the same exact paper.

It's a meta-analysis of 52 studies of the problem reported over the last few decades. It confirms that yes, inter-reviewer reliability is low. The studies that report otherwise turn out to have smaller sample sizes and other signs of lower reliability. The question now is: to what extent is this a problem?

One of the studies they quote maintains that too high a level of agreement would also be the sign of a problem (that some of the reviewers are redundant, and that the pool of referees might have been poorly chosen). I'm willing to think that total agreement is probably not a good thing, and that total disagreement is also trouble. So what level of gentlemanly disagreement is optimal? And are most journals above it or below?

FIguring that out won't be easy. Some journals would really have to open their books for a detailed look at all the comments that come in. I assume that there are editors who look over their reviewers, looking for those that tend to be outliers in the process. (Um, there are some editors that do this, right?) But that takes us back to the same question - do you value those people for the perspective they provide, or do you wonder if they're just flakes? Without a close reading of what everyone had to say about the crop of submissions, it's hard to say. Actually, it might not be easy, even then. . .

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 15, 2010

What A Paper Doesn't Have In It

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So, should I apologize for the tone of yesterday's post? I'm not ready to yet, and I'll explain why.

Here's a general rule: if you find yourself having to make excuses for a scientific paper, for the key experiments that weren't done and the rationales that don't appear, then something is wrong. A paper shouldn't make you have to assume that the authors will get around to running Experiment X and Comparison Y and Test Z, and put that in their next manuscript. (If this makes you think of the recent arsenic bacteria controversy, you're right on target). Anything like that which immediately comes to mind should be in the first manuscript. If the authors haven't put it in there, then it's the job of the referees to tell them to go back and do it. And whoever refereed this paper did an incompetent job.

Now, a quick technical note. It's true that medium-sized rings can form isolable atropisomers in some cases. (An atropisomer, for those who aren't chemists - or chirality geeks - is a compound that can exist as two mirror-image forms just through some sort of constrained movement of its parts. A putatively flat compound that comes around and wraps over itself like a screw thread is one example, as is one with a bond that should be freely rotating but it blocked by large side chains from doing so).

Problem is, this compound sure doesn't look like one of those cases. It has no bulky groups that have trouble getting out of each other's way, and it has no helical chirality. The only thing it has, to my eyes, is a nitrogen that could only lead to new isomers if its barrier to inversion were really, really high - and it shouldn't be. For nevirapine, there really should be no way to isolate such an isomer at room temperature. If anyone can provide evidence for isolable atropisomers in a system as small and lightly substituted as this one, I'll certainly consider eating my words - but not until then.

But that brings up a larger point. This is actually one of the things that makes me think this paper is bogus: the presence of such a compound really would be the big selling point of the manuscript, if the authors had thought about it. Instead, their main focus is on how the structure turns out to be a natural product (which I have trouble believing, too),and not on the bizarre nature of it being chiral. The chirality, frankly, seems to be an afterthought, the way things are written. The word "atropisomer" does not make an appearance. References to the other dibenzo ring systems that have shown this interesting phenomenon (which were worth papers all their own) are not cited. There is no mention of a nitrogen inversion. (If that were the explanation, you'd also expect that heating up the sample would eventually start flipping the molecules past that barrier and removing the optical activity - but there's no mention of any such thing). You'd never know that there was something interesting going on, because the authors give us no reason to believe that they knew that, either.

It would also be quite interesting, if you could have such a thing as an optical isomer of nevirapine, to see what its activity would be on its enzyme target, reverse transcriptase. And if nevirapine could exist as enantiomers, how about running the synthetic material down some chiral columns to see if you could resolve it? Then show that your new optically active stuff is only one of those peaks; that would be pretty convincing. Not done, not done, not even mentioned, etc.

Here's another consideration: as mentioned yesterday, I don't think that this structure has been given very good characterization (the X-ray data seem insufficient to talk about chirality). One of the comments to yesterday's post wondered why the authors didn't show HPLC traces with and without a spike of the authentic drug material. That's an excellent idea, and it's something that would be worth showing in an NMR spectrum, too. Claiming that you found nevirapine in a plant is quite weird - you'd want to really hammer down the fact that everything is identical. But these experiments haven't been done, either.

Allow me to mention one more oddity. The authors actually make reference to "optically active nevirapine" (their footnote #10), but the reference they cite (the original paper from Boehringer Ingleheim) does not, as far as I can see, mention any such thing. And that's because no one has ever mentioned any such thing, and that's because I don't think it exists, outside of (just maybe) a low-temperature NMR experiment.

No, I'm still not buying this. I'm upset with the authors for having proposed such a thing with such thin evidence, but I'm really more upset with the editors of what is supposed to be a reputable journal for publishing it.

Comments (27) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

Chiral What? Chiral How?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Thanks to an email from a reader, I can bring you this very weird paper from Tetrahedron. The authors claim to have extracted a local plant and isolated nevirapine, (sold as Viramune by Boehringer Ingleheim as a reverse transcriptase inhibitor for HIV).
That's kind of odd. I'm no natural products expert, but I've sure seen a lot of them over the years, and that framework (and the N-cyclopropyl) don't look so likely to me. But hey, plants do odd things. That's not what's really puzzling about this paper. No, what's had me staring at it this morning is the claim that, in contrast to the marketed drug, this stuff is optically active nevirapine.

Say what? Try as I might, I can't see any plausible way that that's a chiral compound. The authors seem to think it is, though. They claim optical rotation, somehow, and then say that "The detailed structure and stereochemistry of compound 1 was established unambiguously by single crystal X-ray crystallography." But hold on - that's not as easy as it sounds. Getting absolute configurations from the X-ray data of light-atom-only molecules takes special efforts, and I don't see any being taken (molybdenum X-rays, direct methods, no talk of anomalous dispersion, etc.)

I'm just not willing to see that nitrogen atom as a source of chirality - if it were, shouldn't that be the focus of this whole paper? Instead, the authors just blithely tell us how neat it is that they've isolated the chiral material. In fact, they find it so neat that they tell us two times in a row:

This is a very interesting discovery that naturally occurring optically active nevirapine has been biosynthesized in the seeds of C.viscosa and the optically inactive nevirapine was designed as a selective non-nucleoside inhibitor of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. It is also a remarkable finding that the seed of C.viscosa is the source of optically active nevirapine, which was also designed and synthesized before its isolation from natural source.

This sounds like some sort of lunatic patent-busting exercise, to be honest. And it sounds as if someone doesn't know what a chiral compound is. And that whoever reviewed this for Tetrahedron was incompetent. And that the editor who let it through should be a least a little bit ashamed. Well?

Comments (73) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Infectious Diseases | Natural Products | The Scientific Literature

December 14, 2010

The Solid Phase

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Looking over the chemical literature with an RSS reader can really give you a sense of what the hot topics are, and what's cooling off. Remember when it seemed as if every third paper was about ionic liquids? You still see work in the area, but it's nowhere near as crazy as it was. (I had a colleague come by my office the other day and ask "Did anyone ever find out what to do with those things?") Similarly, gold catalysts have been all over the place in recent years, but seem, to my eye, to be calming down.

Some of these things are research areas that look promising, but die off when their limits become apparent. Some of them are almost sheer fads, with papers coming out from all sorts of odd places because the authors want to get in on the hot, publishable topics while they can. Others keep going because the topics themselves are important but ver hard to exhaust (metal-catalyzed couplings come to mind).

And there are areas that keep going in the literature because they look like they should be important and useful, and eventually will, but no one can quite get them to either work generally enough or get people to recognize that they do. The metal-catalyzed coupling literature was in this shape back in the 1970s and into the 1980s - there were a lot of disparate reactions that you could do with palladium, but none of them had exactly taken over the world. My vote for a current field in this protostar state is engineered solid-phase catalysis.

That may sound odd, since work on solid-phase catalysts has been going on for decades, and is of huge industrial importance. But many of the important catalysts have been arrived at either by luck or by an awful lot of hard slogging. The field is complicated enough - fiendishly so - that it's hard to draw general conclusions. If you have a good solution-phase catalyst, how do you make a solid-supported variety that works just as efficiently? Well. . .if you really want one, you make about a zillion variants and hope for the best, as far as I can see.

Part of the problem (as with the metal-catalyzed coupling world) is that there are just so many variables. The solid supports alone are enough to keep a person occupied for life, what with all the various aluminas, silicas, zeolites, polymers, mesoporous engineered thingies, and so on. Then you have the uncountable schemes for linking these surfaces to active catalysts - what functional groups to use, what density things should be on the surface, what distance you need between the surface and the catalyst, etc. And just linking up to the known catalysts is no light work, either, since most of these things were not made with convenient handles hanging off them.

As we get better at making (and characterizing) new kinds of surfaces and new kinds of macromolecular assemblies, we might start to get our hands around this subject. For now, though, it seems to be mostly in the descriptive stage: papers are of the "Hey, we made this thing and here's what it does" variety, with further work in the series being "Hey, remember that stuff we made? Turns out you can do this with it, too - who knew?" What you don't see, or not too darn often, is a paper describing the general principles of these processes. For the most part, we don't know them yet.

But if I had to pick an area that will eventually blossom into a host of applications, this would be high on the list. It's a mixture of surface chemistry, materials science, nanotechnology, and organic synthesis, and it's got a lot of promise. But then again, it's had a lot of promise for a long time now. . .

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

December 9, 2010

So What's Going On With Peer Review, Anyway?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I have a larger comment, sparked by the controversy over the NASA-arsenic-bacteria paper in Science. But it's not just about that one. It's about the "reactome" paper (also in Science and now retracted), the hexacyclinol synthesis published in Ang. Chem., and others. There have been, I think it's fair to say, a number of very arguable papers published in very high-profile journals in recent years. What's going on?

I want to make it clear that I'm not upset about journals published "out-there" work. In fact, I wish that there were a bit more of it. But at the same time, if you're going to go out there on the edge, you'd better have some solid stuff to report when you come back and write up the paper. Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence, and that's where things seem to be breaking down.

Peer review is supposed to catch these things. That reactome paper had chemists rolling their eyes as soon as they saw the synthetic schemes in it, and asking if anyone at the journal had thought to call someone who knew organic chemistry during the review process. This latest arsenic paper has other specialists upset, for different reasons (and, to be sure, for reasons that don't require much scientific specialization at all, as detailed in my post after I'd given the paper a close reading). But that hexacyclinol paper appeared in a chemistry journal, and had (one assumes!) been reviewed by competent chemists. How, then, could it have been published to immediate howls of derision about the quality of the evidence in it?

I also want to make clear that I'm not talking about some of the other categories of bad papers, such as the things are are probably true, but of little interest to anyone. And in the probably-not-true category, lower-ranking journals let not-so-good stuff through pretty often. I've been hard on Biorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters here before, among other journals, for publishing things that appear to have been incompetently reviewed. But these journals aren't Science or Nature, and the whole point of prestigious journals is that the things that appear in them are supposed to be important, and they're also supposed to be thoroughly vetted.

Is it the push to land the big papers that will make a big splash? Does that cause people in the editorial offices to bend the rules a bit? The official answer from every journal editor that's ever lived to such questions has been "Of course not!", but you have to wonder. Is it a problem with how they're assigning papers for review - who they go to, or how seriously the reviews are taken when they come back? I really don't know. I just know that we seem to be seeing a lot of embarrassing stuff in the literature these days. It's not supposed to work that way.

Comments (40) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 22, 2010

Spending and Publishing

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since we were talking about worldwide scientific productivity here the other day, this article in The Economist is timely. They're talking about the share of worldwide R&D (and papers published) by country, and pointing out that the longtime order seems to be changing.

For sheer scientific publications,that order is, of course, the US and Western Europe, followed distantly by everyone else. I've reproduced two graphs from the article, atrocious color schemes and all, and you can see how large the gap has been in the published-paper count.. But there are several interesting features. Note how back in the early 1980s, Russia and Japan were quite similar, but the old Soviet Union (and its successor Russian state) was on the decline even then. Meanwhile, China has come up from nowhere to overtake even Japan. India, South Korea, and Brazil are down in the single digits.
But that brings up some other questions. Take a look at the second graph, on R&D spending as a % of GDP. (This is over a shorter time scale than the paper graph, so adjust your perspective accordingly). Note that Japan has been leading the way here, with South Korea catching up. Neither of them (especially South Korea) publish as much, though, as you'd think, given this investment - is the rest of it going into patents? Or staying inside the labs? Looked at another way, though, the EU is publishing even more than you'd think, given their R&D spending.
You'll see that China is coming up in the spending world, although they're not rising as steeply as South Korea (no one is). India's pretty flat, though, and are being outspent, on this basis, by Brazil. (I hope I'm reading the various shades of aquamarine, teal, and blue-green correctly - you know, the Economist used to be good at presenting information graphically, but whoever let this one through should be whacked on the head).

Neither of these measures is an end in itself. I'd say that robust R&D spending is necessary (but not sufficient) for a country to produce good results. And there are probably a lot of different ways to count things as R&D or not, which we aren't seeing here. As for publications, they're an even rougher measure, since different countries have different cultures (and incentives) for this sort of thing. (Don't forget language barriers, either). And as everyone knows, there are papers and there are papers. Long lists of junk that no one ever reads would be one way to inflate things, but to what good?

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 17, 2010

More Fraudulent Papers Coming From the US?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: Richard Van Noorden at Nature runs the numbers on this paper, and comes to the same conclusions: you can't use it to say that US papers are more prone to fraud. . .

There's a new paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics looking at fraudulent publications. The author went back and studied the papers in the PubMed database that have been retracted during the last ten years (there are 788 of them), looking for trends. And so far, the press coverage that I've seen of his conclusions seems to be missing the point.

One thing that stands out is that retracted papers tend to come from higher-profile journals. That makes sense to me, because that's (a) where they're more likely to be noticed, and (b) where the editors are more likely to care. As you move down the list, people just seem to start shrugging their shoulders. Has a paper ever been retracted from Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, for example? I can't think of any, and readers are invited to try to find one themselves.

Another conclusion is that retracted papers tend to come from serial offenders. Over half the retracted papers had a first author who had retracted something else. I think that probably represents cases where someone had published a body of fraudulent work which all got exposed at once, but if that's not a serial offender, I don't know what is.

But a third conclusion is the one getting the headline writers going. The paper examines the retractions, looking for whether they were withdrawn for error or for fraud. The US is notable for having more retractions in the latter category, as compared to the rest of the world: one third of its 260 retracted papers are attributed to fraud, while the rest of the world comes in between 20% and 25%. So you get things like "US Scientists More Likely To Commit Fraud". But no, for that conclusion to be valid, you'd want to know how many fraudulent papers were published as a percentage of the whole output.

Even that wouldn't tell you the whole story. Remember, we're looking at papers that have actually been retracted. Most published fraudulent research never gets to that point. Lower-end journals have a terrible problem with plagiarized, derivative junk. Piles of it gets sent to them, then too much of it gets into print, and it just sits there, with no one ever paying any attention. Well, years later, some poor person might try to reproduce a prep, find that it doesn't work, sigh, and try something else, but otherwise. . .

No, in the same way that the prominent journals are over-represented, I think that the US might be a bit over-represented because slightly more fraud gets caught. More US papers appear in prominent journals than average, and fewer appear in the absolute bottom-rung journals. The United States accounts for at least one-third of the total scientific paper output, so those 260 papers out of 788 are exactly what you'd expect if all other things were equal. But other things aren't equal. We may have more prominent (and more harmful) frauds here, but I'd be willing to bet that as a proportion of the whole, we have fewer of them.

One last note: the figures in this paper seem to conflict with an earlier analysis, which seems to have found fewer retracted papers in PubMed, and a higher proportion of them tainted by fraud. Who's right?

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 12, 2010

99% Yield? That, Friends, Is Deception

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Here's an attention-getting paper from Tomas Hudlicky (and his co-author Martina Wernerova), and I'd like to help it get some more. It begins:

One who has been reading the literature concerned with organic synthesis in recent years, be it methodology, catalysis, or total synthesis of natural products, may have noticed considerable inflation in the values reported for isolated product yields, ratios of diastereomers, and enantiomeric excess values. A comparison of papers published during the period 1955 to 1980 with those published between 1980 and 2005 reveals that those from the more recent period frequently report isolated product yields of reactions >95%. Such large values were rarely found in the older literature and are all but absent in Organic Syntheses, a journal that only publishes procedures that have been independently reproduced. . .

There, does that sound like the chemical literature you know? Just a bit? Hudlicky has tackled this issue before, and the reasons he advances for the problem remain the same: pressure to make your methods stand out (to the scientific community, to the journal editors, to the granting agencies), a decrease in scale in reactions (making accuracy and precision more difficult), and, finally, what he refers to as "deliberate adjustment". That's well put; the rest of us know it as fraud.

He identifies the mid-1980s as roughly the period when things really started to go to pieces, saying that most procedures in reputable journals before that era are reproducible by, as they say, one skilled in the art, while the numbers have been decreasing since then. And he puts some numbers on the problem, performing a series of test experiments with extremely careful weighing and analysis.

These confirm what every working organic chemist knows: the more manipulations, the more sample you lose. Filtration through a plug of silica gel, into one flask, can give you pretty much complete recovery. But if you cut fractions, you're going to lose about 1%. And if you have to do a separation, even between two widely separated compounds on silica, you're going to lose about 2%. So people who report a >98% yield after chromatography from a real-world crude mixture are kidding themselves. The same goes for extractions and other common methods. In general, every manipulation of a reaction is going to cost you 1 to 2% of your material, even with careful technique. Hudlicky again:

Given that most academic groups do not subject day-to-day reactions to serious optimization or matrix-optimization [6] as is done in industry, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the reactions reported in the literature do not proceed with quantitative conversions. Such aspect would approximate our experiments with mixtures of pure compounds. Because a minimum of three operations (extraction, filtration, and evaporation) is required in working up most reactions, we conclude that yields higher than ca. 94% obtained by work-up and chromatography of crude reaction mixtures are likely unrealistic and erroneous in nature. Such values may arise as a direct consequence of not following correct protocols, which would be expected in the fast-paced academic environment. (An astute student of the organic literature may discover that this very author has been guilty of reporting yields in this range from time to time!)

He goes on to detail the limits of error in weighing, which depend greatly on the amount of sample and the size of the flask. (The smaller the sample-to-container ratio, the worse things get, as you'd figure). And he turns to analyzing mixures of diastereomers by NMR, LC, and the like. As it turns out, NMR is an excellent way to determine these up to about a ratio of 95:5 , but past that, things get tricky. And "past that" is just where a lot of papers go these days, with a precision that is often completely spurious.

Here's the bottom line:

The conclusion drawn from this set of experiments points to the prevalence of serious discrepancies in the reporting of values for yields and ratios in the current literature. We have demonstrated that the facilities and equipment available in a typical academic laboratory are not adequate to support the accuracy of claims frequently made in the literature. . .The current practice of reporting unrealistically high isolated product yields and stereoisomer ratios creates serious problems in reproducibility and hence leads to diminished credibility of the authors.

He recommends a rigorous disclosure of the spread of product yields over multiple experiments, calibration of LC and GC apparatus, or (failing that) at least admitting that no such analysis has been done. (He also recommends getting rid of the concepts of diastereomeric and enantiomeric excess, in line with my fellow Arkansan Robert Gawley's advice). But I think that these ideas, while perfectly reasonable, don't get at the underlying problems - the inflationary pressure to produce more and more noteworthy results. Hudlicky's rules should be adopted - but I fear that they might just push the self-deception (and outright fraud) into newer territories.

I'm glad he's published this paper, though. Because everyone knows that this is a real problem - we complain about it, we joke about it, we mutter and we grit our teeth. But "officially", in the published literature, it's never mentioned. Let's stop pretending, shall we?

Comments (67) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

And Now, the Retractome

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Back in January, I wrote about the controversial "Reactome" paper that had appeared in Science. This is the one that claimed to have immobilized over 1600 different kinds of biomolecules onto nanoparticles, and then used chemical means to set off a fluorescence assay when any protein recognized them. When actual organic chemists got a look at their scheme - something that apparently never happened during the review process - flags went up. As shown in that January post (and all over the chemical blogging world), the actual reactions looked, well, otherwordly.

Science was already backtracking within the first couple of months, and back in the summer, an institutional committee recommended that it be withdrawn. Since then, people have been waiting for the thunk of another shoe dropping, and now it's landed: the entire paper has been retracted. (More at C&E News). The lead author, though, tells Nature that other people have been using his methods, as described, and that he's still going to clear everything up.

I'm not sure how that's going to happen, but I'll be interested to see the attempt being made. The organic chemistry in the original paper was truly weird (and truly unworkable), and the whole concept of being able to whip up some complicated reactions schemes in the presence of a huge number of varied (and unprotected) molecules didn't make sense. The whole thing sounded like a particularly arrogant molecular biologist's idea of how synthetic chemistry should work: do it like a real biologist does! Sweeping boldly across the protein landscape, you just make them all work at the same time - haven't you chemists every heard of microarrays? Of proteomics? Why won't you people get with the times?

And the sorts of things that do work in modern biology would almost make you believe in that approach, until you look closely. Modern biology depends, though, on a wonderful legacy, a set of incredible tools bequeathed to us by billions of years of the most brutal product-development cycles imaginable (work or quite literally die). Organic chemistry, though, had no Aladdin's cave of enzymes and exquisitely adapted chemistries to stumble into. We've had to work everything out ourselves. And although we've gotten pretty good at it, the actions of something like RNA polymerase still look like the works of angels in comparison.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Scientific Literature

November 5, 2010

Peer Review's Problems

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Over at Ars Technica, here's an excellent look at the peer review process, which I last spoke about here. The author, Chris Lee, rightly points out that we ask it to do several different things, and it's not equally good at all of them.

His biggest problem is with the evaluation of research proposals for grants, and that has indeed been a problem for many years. Reviewing a paper, where you have to evaluate things that other people have done, can be hard enough. But evaluating what people hope to be able to do is much harder:

. . .Reviewers are asked to evaluate proposed methods, but, given that the authors themselves don't yet know if the methodology will work as described, how objective can they be? Unless the authors are totally incompetent and are proposing to use a method that is known not to work in the area they wish to use it, the reviewer cannot know what will happen.

As usual, there is no guarantee that the reviewer is more of an expert in the area than the authors. In fact, it's more often the case that they're not, so whose judgement should be trusted? There is just no way to tell a good researcher combined with incompetent peer review from an incompetent researcher and good peer review.

Reviewers are also asked to judge the significance of the proposed research. But wait—if peer review fails to consistently identify papers that are of significance when the results are in, what chance does it have of identifying significant contributions that haven't yet been made? Yeah, get out your dice. . .

And as he goes on to point out, the consequences of getting a grant proposal reviewed poorly are much worse than the ones from getting a paper's review messed up. These are both immediate (for the researcher involved) and systemic:

There is also a more insidious problem associated with peer review of grant applications. The evaluation of grant proposals is a reward-and-punishment system, but it doesn't systematically reward good proposals or good researchers, and it doesn't systematically reject bad proposals or punish poor researchers. Despite this, researchers are wont to treat it as if it was systematic and invest more time seeking the rewards than they do in performing active research, which is ostensibly where their talents lie.

Effectively, in trying to be objective and screen for the very best proposals, we waste a lot of time and fail to screen out bad proposals. This leads to a lot cynicism and, although I am often accused of being cynical, I don't believe it is a healthy attitude in research.

I fortunately haven't ever had to deal with this process, having spent my scientific career in industry, but we have our own problems with figuring out which projects to advance and why. Anyone who's interested in peer review, though, should know about the issues that Lee is bringing up. Well worth a read.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

October 19, 2010

Trusting the Medical Literature?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

How reliable is the medical literature, anyway? This profile of John Ioannidis at The Atlantic is food for thought. Ioannidis is the man behind the famous "Why Most Published Medical Findings Are False" paper a few years ago, and many others in the same vein.

The problems are many: publication bias (negative findings don't get written up and reported as often), confirmation bias, and desire to stand out/justify the time and money/get a grant renewal. And then there's good old lack of statistical power. Ioannidis and his colleagues have noted that far too many studies that appear in the medical journals are underpowered, statistically, relative to the claims made for them. The replication rates of such findings are not good.

Interestingly, drug research probably comes out of his analysis looking as good as anything can. A large confirmatory Phase III study is, as you'd hope, the sort of thing most likely to be correct, even given the financial considerations involved. Even then, though, you can't be completely sure - but contrast that with a lot of the headline-grabbing studies in nutrition or genomics, whose results are actually more likely to be false than true.

Ioannidis's rules from that PLoS Medicine paper are worth keeping in mind:

The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.

And although he's talking about the published literature, these things are well worth keeping in mind when you're looking at your own internal data in a drug discovery project. Some fraction of what you're seeing is wrong.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Clinical Trials | Drug Development | The Scientific Literature

October 15, 2010

Those Chemistry Bloggers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

After reading this piece on Chembark, I find that I have to help defend the whole chem-blogging enterprise. The latest Analytical Chemistry has an editorial from Royce Murray, on the subject. Unfortunately, it sounds like something written several years ago. He lays out the current model of scientific publishing, and along the way, briefly defends journal impact factors. Then he says that the lay public has traditionally received news of scientific discoveries through reports in magazines and newspapers, but that the finances in those areas has produced a "shrinkage" of the flow of reliable information to the public. And now we come to the part that really worries him:

In the above light, I believe that the current phenomenon of “bloggers” should be of serious concern to scientists. Bloggers are entrepreneurs who sell “news” (more properly, opinion) to mass media: internet, radio, TV, and to some extent print news. In former days, these individuals would be referred to as “freelance writers”, which they still are; the creation of the modern non-word “blogger” does not change the purveyor. An essential change is that these new freelancers, with the megaphone of the internet, can reach a much larger audience of potential clients than was possible in the past (and harness free “information sources”). . .blogging “agencies” are popping up that openly advertise “no formal qualifications are necessary” (as an internet search for “qualifications of bloggers” revealed). Who are the fact-checkers now? There are no reviewers in a formal sense, and writing can be done for any purpose—political, religious, business, etc.—without the constraint of truth.

He goes on to bemoan the lack of a system to qualify and fact-check these "bloggers" - I like the quotation marks, by the way - maybe we should stick those around every word that entered the language less than ten years ago, just to be sure. Now, it would be easy for me to spend a few paragraphs in the same mode as that last sentence, and as Murray accurately notes, there's no editor to stop me. But I won't, because some of his worries are well-founded.

There is indeed a lot of inaccurate nonsense on the internet. And everyone should read what they find online with a thought to who's written it, and why. But everyone should do the same with stuff that's printed on flattened sheets of dead trees, too, even if there are flattened-dead-tree-sheet editors and fact checkers. This is no place to list the stories that have been horribly messed up by even the most respectable of the old media. I'm thinking of a good list right now; any well-informed person should be able to. (If you can't, you're not as well-informed as you think you are). And there is indeed a lot of good science reporting in newspapers and magazines, although we can't ignore the fact that there's an awful lot of lazy and sloppy science reporting, too.

But there's a lot of inaccurate nonsense in the peer-reviewed literature, too. Without editors and reviewers there would surely be more, but too much junk gets through as it is. And if you want to see that stuff flagged, you'll do well to read the chemistry blogs. Murray's editorial doesn't seem to note that the most widely read ones are all written by chemists, not these unqualified people he's worried about. Would it be a cheap shot to point out that some editing and fact-checking might have caught that point before the editorial went out? Or (the other way around) to point out that a quick look through the scientific blogging world would have done just as well?

This, to me, is the real change that blogging has wrought, and I think it's for the better. Now, anyone who has the desire and ability can write about what they really know, about what they do for a living, and find an audience. I am most definitely not making a living as a journalist. My blog is a useful sideline to my real job, which is drug discovery. When I started in this industry, there was no way for me to self-publish my thoughts about it, but now there is, and I couldn't be happier about that.

Murray is suffering, I think, from a mental block, one that comes from his experience of journalism over his lifetime. He (and many other people) seem to feel that reporting is some sort of special profession, and that "real" journalists are the ones who write for the "real" news outlets. And it's a world where everyone knows which ones those are. It was fairly easy to believe that during the last half of the 20th century, but not so easy before it. (Or, as we're seeing, afterwards). All kinds of scruffy, opinionated people used to run newspapers in this country, and now they have internet sites. As do scientists, professors, lawyers, and anyone else with a keyboard and the desire. They're writing "for any purpose", just the way that Murray is worried about. And it's great.

A couple of postscripts: I should point out that I never would have seen Murray's piece at all had it not been for reading the scientific blogs - I hope that gives him some food for thought. He should also check out the above-linked Chembark post, as well as this response from Terra Sigillata (on an ACS site, no less), this one at InSightU, this one at Science 2.0, and this one at Cephalove. There will surely be more. Quite a lot of discussion! And it would be worth wondering how much of an impact this editorial would have had if it had only appeared in the print version of the journal, instead of being picked up by the Blogging Hordes. Could it be that he knows much more about the internet than he seems to, and he's successfully trolled us all?

Comments (41) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

October 14, 2010

Conference Thoughts

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Update: here's a trip report on this conference over at Practical Fragments

I'm back from Philadelphia and the FBLD conference. I'm not going to put a trip report up on the blog - although I'm certainly writing one up for my colleagues at work - but a number of people at the meeting asked me what I might say about it here.

Well, I enjoyed it. I tend to like more focused conferences like this one, anyway, where most of the people doing the best work in a field can attend what's still a fairly small meeting. It probably helps that this isn't a very old series of meetings, too. Over time, some sort of scientific entropy sets in, and the topics covered can begin to smear out a bit. Some of the longer-running Gordon Conferences are (to me, anyway) a little blurry about what they're trying to cover.

That same tendency can affect individual talks. We medicinal chemists are particularly guilty of that, since our discipline spreads over a pretty wide area. At a meeting like this one, which was all about fragment-based techniques, people had to resist the temptation to keep going past the fragment-based parts of their talk. Once you get up toward 400 molecular weight, you're not talking about fragments any more - you're doing good old medicinal chemistry. Maybe it's structure-based at that point, maybe not, and maybe you're using some of the biophysical techniques that help out with moving fragment leads forward - but the fragment techniques are what got you to that point, not what's carrying you forward through the concerns about PK, formulations, polymorphs, and all the other later-stage worries of a drug program.

The speakers at this meeting generally did a good job avoiding this pitfall, but I have to admit that the few times I saw PK data come up on the screen, I stopped taking notes. I didn't stop listening, on the chance that there might be something interesting, but it certainly wasn't what I was there to focus on. One could imagine a whole meeting about solving PK problems in drug development - there probably is one, actually. But at that one, you'd have to make sure that the speakers didn't spend time telling you about the neat fragment-based techniques that led to their drug candidate.

As I said, though, there were a lot of interesting speakers at this one, and not a single talk was anything close to a complete waste of time. How many meetings can you say that about? Things ran smoothly, and with notably better food than some of the other conferences I've attended. Some meetings just pitch a bunch of Wissenschaftlerfutter out onto the tables, figuring that people will deal with it - and to be honest, they're usually right. We'll eat most anything in this field, although I've been told that physicists are even less discriminating, so at least we have that.

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

September 21, 2010

Want To Make an Amide? Have I Got Good News For You!

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Y'know, this is what I call an incremental improvement in the synthetic repetoire. I noticed this new paper in Tetrahedron Letters by its title, and read the whole thing just to make sure that I wasn't missing something.

Yep, that's right: someone has come up with a new way to form amides by reacting acid chlorides and amines. "But hold on," you say, "I thought that acid chlorides and amines form amides like an unstoppable juggernaut, which grinds to a halt only when enough HCl is given off to take the remaining amine out of contention". Well, you'd be right about that: but that's because you didn't think of using samarium metal as an acid scavenger.

Because that's what it seems to be here. The authors report that you have to pretty much use a full equivalent of samarium to get the high yields - control experiments with only 1/3 equivalent didn't work so well. What I wish they'd done is run the freaking control experiments with triethylamine. Or Hünig's base. Or pyridine. Or potassium carbonate, or aqueous 0.1N NaOH, or resin-bound nanocrystalline cesium complexes prepared in ionic liquids through renewable green chemistry whatchamacallits - in fact, with damn near anything else except stoichiometric metallic samarium, of all things. Well, OK: zinc and indium didn't work. I stand corrected. Give these folks another four or five Tet Lett papers, and they'll work their way back to baking soda. Only it'll be samarium bicarbonate, with any luck.

Perhaps I'm being unfair here. But really, amide formation is not a problem that is crying out for a new solution. It's really very, very, well worked out, and the number of options available for the experimentalist are nearly beyond counting. But now there's samarium metal. So if you're looking for the most expensive way you can think of to react an acid chloride with an amine, one that will make your labmates question your sanity and a reaction that will probably be a separate item all on its own come your next annual performance review, then go to it.

Oh, and one more thing: if you bother to read the experimental section, which apparently no one did, the procedure is titled: "General procedure for the homocoupling of terminal alkynes". Wrong samarium reaction, guys.

Comments (66) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

September 20, 2010

Sodium Hydride As Oxidant, Again?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Many readers will remember the "sodium hydride as an oxidizing reagent" story from last year. (For the non-chemists in the audience, the problem here is that sodium hydride is most certainly not what you'd think of as an oxidizing reagent, quite the opposite, in fact. Seeing the paper's title was, for an organic chemist, a bit like reading about a new way to sweeten drinks with vinegar).

This was famously live-blogged over at Totally Synthetic and picked up on around the chemical blog world. The current thinking, though, is that adventitious oxygen is really doing the work here. If you run the reaction under strict inert atmosphere conditions, you get no more oxidation. (And it still doesn't appear that any note has been added to the original JACS paper). Update - make that no note added to the abstract page. The paper itself is still accessible, although it does have notes that it was withdrawn.

Well, now we have another one. This paper in press in Tetrahedron Letters claims oxidation of benzoins to benzils with good ol' sodium hydride. In this case, anyway, the authors (from Korea) did try running the reaction under inert atmosphere, and saw their yield go down. Their proposed mechanism involves molecular oxygen, in fact, and is quite plausible. (I've seen anion-oxygen chemistry myself - if you deprotonate Strecker amines of benzaldehydes, you'll convert them into amides via oxygen in your solvent, that is, if you don't saturate things with inert gas first). Still, I'd rather that they titled this paper differently, since it's not sodium hydride that's doing the oxidation here. You could probably get this to happen with NaHMDS, t-butoxide, or the base of your choice.

And, weirdly, the authors (as far as I can see by going over the PDF) manage not to cite the original JACS NaH oxidation paper at all. You'd never think that anyone had tried this before, especially not in one of the most high-profile chemical journals in the world, just last year, with plenty of added press coverage. What does it take a get a paper cited? Update: given the withdrawn-but-still-available status of the original, this becomes a trickier question. The earlier paper seems to have clearly gone through the same sort of chemistry, but the mechanism - and thus the point of the whole paper - was misassigned. Do you cite it, or not?

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Chemical News | The Scientific Literature

J. Whoozat Sci.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Not long ago I wrote about a Chinese journal that said that about a third of its submissions turned out to contain plagiarized material. Journal publishing in that country is apparently a real swamp, and the Chinese government has taken the publishers by surprise with an announcement that they're going to drain it:

Li Dongdong, a vice-minister of state and deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) — the powerful government body that regulates all publications in China — acknowledged that the country's scientific publishing had a "severe" problem, with "a big gap between quality and quantity", and needed reform.

Opening a meeting of scientific publishers in Shanghai on 7 September, Li announced that by January 2011, new regulations will be used to "terminate" weak journals.

Precisely how this reform will work is the subject of hot debate. . .News of the regulation startled many of the publishers at last week's meeting.

I'll bet it did, particularly those publishers who are turning out junk. And believe me, you know if you're publishing a crappy journal full of papers that no one reads. As that Nature News article goes on to detail, China is full of "campus journals", which exist only for the local grad students and the like to accumulate lines on their publication record. A colleague of mine used to call such titles "The Journal of Our Results", and that's right on target.

But while I can understand China's desire to upgrade its sometimes embarrassing scientific publishing world, I have to worry about the way that they're choosing to do it - not that it doesn't fit the best traditions of the Chinese government, mind you. This sit-still-while-we-fix-you approach may work in the short term, but if there's a demand for the Journal of Our Results (from authors, if not readers), then won't such titles just spring back up again under different names? As longtime readers here will easily be able to guess, I'd prefer a more market-oriented solution.

If the committees evaluating publishing records decided not to value such journals, much of their reason to exist would presumably vanish. While it's true that there's no perfect way to evaluate journals, a situation like China's - overrun with Journal of Whoozat Technical Colleges, 98% stocked with multi-part papers from the faculty of Whoozat - would seem to be waiting for everyone to just stop pretending. This let's-be-honest-here approach would let the people publishing this junk continue to exist, but they'd probably have to find a better business model.

As it is, just shutting these people down doesn't do anything for the let's-pretend side of the market, which I presume will continue to exist. And it'll probably be filled by the all-new Proceedings of the Whoozat Academy, Whoozat Letters, Acta Whoozatica, and who knows what else.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 17, 2010

Put In Another Methyl Group: A Villanelle

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A comment to the most recent post on puns mentioned the famous JOC paper in verse from the 1970s, and prompted another comment that "If you have to report your results as a villanelle, I think we'll see fewer methyl, ethyl, butyl, futile papers. . ."

Well, it's not a whole paper, for sure. But here's the best that I can do in thirty minutes:

Put In Another Methyl Group: A Villanelle

I shouldn't have to put a methyl there
No matter what the modeling group might say
So it docks to perfection: I don't care.

The project head gave me an evil glare
When I spoke up at our review today.
I shouldn't have to put a methyl there.

"The glutamate will pick up that lone pair".
Who knows? That might be right; I couldn't say.
So it docks to perfection: I don't care.

How do these really bind? We don't know where.
It's not like we can get a good X-ray.
I shouldn't have to put a methyl there.

Quaternary chiral centers? I don't dare.
I'd need two months if I needed a day.
So it docks to perfection: I don't care.

But no one ever said research was fair.
I'm going to have to come up with a way.
I shouldn't have to put a methyl there.
So it docks to perfection: I don't care.

Update: yes, I'm going to give the molecular modelers their own poem. It's only fair!

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Life in the Drug Labs | The Scientific Literature

Spread of the Pun Virus

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Are we going to see this in all the Wiley-hosted European-based journals? Angewandte Chemie has specialized, as has been noted many times, in wince-worthy puns in its article abstracts.

Today I take a look at ChemBioChem and find this. No one is safe.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 10, 2010

Cut-and-Paste Your Way to Publication

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The topic of plagiarism in scientific journals has come up here several times. In recent years, automated systems for checking similar blocks of text have become available, and a number of journals now run their submissions past such software.

The first journal in China to sign up for the most well-known of these (CrossCheck) is the Journal of Zhejiang University–Science. I'll freely admit that I'd never heard of it, not that I've heard of a lot of the Chinese-language journals. But I also have to take my hat off to them, both for using the plagiarism-detection service and especially for writing in to Nature with the results.

Since October 2008, they've found "unoriginal material" in 31% of all their submissions, a number they themselves call "staggering". (Here's an earlier report on their progress). The letter mentions some possible cultural problems, such as Chinese students traditionally being asked to copy things word-for-word from authorities, but I'd guess that there's plenty of the good old publish-or-perish at work here, too. At any rate, congratulations to them for publicizing such problems; that's the only way they'll ever get any better.

Comments (17) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

September 2, 2010

Posters and Pickiness

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Blogging time is short today, since I'm on a deadline to produce a couple of posters for presentation. These are for an internal hoe-down, unfortunately, so I won't be able to share the fruits of my labors with everyone out there in the readership. With any luck, though, they'll turn into public presentations/publications eventually, though.

As far as I'm concerned, posters are quite a bit harder to work up than a talk. They really should stand by themselves, for one thing, so you can't fill in any holes verbally. And narrative flow is harder: there's no chance to go back and re-emphasize or contrast with later slides, because the whole thing is sitting out there, with no guarantee of what order people will use to see its parts. (I find that narrative is one of my main weapons in a presentation, so going without it is always tough).

I care about design, too, probably more than I should, so a poster also presents complications there. If visual cues wander a bit from slide to slide through a presentation, that's not good, but it's not fatal, either. But when everything's up there on one sheet, the messages really have to be consistent: same fonts, same colors, same rotations, views, and angles, etc.

But at these times I try to remind myself of what happened to a friend of mine many years ago. She was working on a poster for an ACS meeting, and took it to her PI to look over. "Yes, yes, that looks good", came the word, "but could you perhaps take this part over to here? And emphasize this a bit more? And. . ." So she went back and made the changes, and took the poster back for a re-check. "Much better! Yes. . .but I wonder if maybe this part should be bigger? And did you find a way to include those results where. . ." Back for another round.

After another iteration of this, she caught on. She started taking an unchanged version back to the PI, and after another couple of rounds of seeing the exact same poster, it was finally pronounced ready for viewing. Saves time, saves effort - try it when you can!

Comments (23) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Graduate School | The Scientific Literature

July 6, 2010

Commenting On Scientific Papers: How Come No One Does It?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Why doesn't anyone comment on scientific papers? Let's narrow that down: why doesn't anyone comment on them when they have a comments field attached to them on a scientific publisher's web site?

Nature has been wondering about this for a while. In a new item about "Web 2.0" tools in science, they mention:

But deposition in arXiv is about as far as the scientific openness of even astronomers goes. The discussion that ensues is private. As Nature's experiment in open peer review showed (, and as can be seen from the lack of commenting on papers in Nature and other journals that encourage it, researchers see little to be gained from open discourse before or after publication. Not only are they busy, as the above quotes attest, but there's no credit to be gained, and some risk if one makes an erroneous or critical statement in public. What is more, astronomers and biologists register active discouragement of blogging — a form of communication that in their eyes carries no stamp of reliability or prestige. That picture of resistance to interactive discussion of science on the Internet is further amplified in a new survey, If You Build It, Will They Come? How Researchers Perceive and Use Web 2.0, to be published later this month by the UK Research Information Network.

Contrast that with a comment left here the other day, where a reader suggested that a great business plan might be to start a web site where people could comment on scientific publications. How to reconcile these world views? I think that one word goes a long way: anonymity. The first reaction to that is often a mental picture of the comments pages to (say) YouTube videos, and a brief shudder. And it's true that comments sections that allow easy anonymous accounts can attract all sorts of nasty stuff, as newspapers found out when they opened up their sites.

But anonymity has a long, distinguished history in science. Peer review! People will speak frankly about a paper under review, as long as they know that their comments will remain untraceable by the manuscript's authors. What makes it acceptable is that the editors of the journal know all the names involved, which (usually) keeps things above the midnight-ninja-assassination level.

So what would be needed, I think, would be a site where real e-mail and contact information would be required. You would be free to post under your real name, if you wanted to, or to take on whatever nom de guerre you wished, with the total assurance this this would not be revealed. At the same time, sheer invective and libel would be tossed out immediately, with the line to be drawn at the discretion of the site's editors. Personally, I'd delete comments that said only "This paper sucked", but I'd leave in the ones that said "This paper sucked because of X, Y, and Z." And the comments that started that way but then went on to talk about how the authors sucked in similar fashion would be truncated with some sort of standard mark meaning "ad hominem deleted".

That would be a lot of work. And there's a good chance that it would never take off at all, given the amount of trust involved. Would I wish to run such a site? No way - I already have a full-time job, thanks. But I'd like to see someone try.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

June 25, 2010

What To Do With The Not-Quite-Worthless

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Yesterday morning I went on and on about the low quality of much of what gets published in the scientific literature. And indeed, the low end is very likely of no use to anyone, except (apparently) the people publishing it. But what to do with the rungs above that?

For organic chemistry, those are occupied by papers that report new compounds of little interest to anyone. But you never know - they might be worth someone else's time eventually. It's unlikely that any of these things will be the hinge on which a mighty question turns, but knowing that they've been made (and how), and knowing what their spectra and properties are could save someone time down the line when they're doing something more useful. These are real bricks in the huge construction of scientific knowledge, and while they're not worth much, it's more than zero. That's the value I assign to the hunks of mud that some people offer instead, or the things that look like real bricks but turn out to be made out of brick, yes, but about one millimeter thick and completely hollow.

So what to do with work that's mostly reference data for the future? It shouldn't have to appear in physical print, you'd think. How about the peer-reviewed journal part? Well, peer review is not magic. As it stands, that sort of information is the least-reviewed part of most papers. If someone tells you that they've made Compound X and Compound Y, and the synthesis isn't obviously crazy, you tend to take their word for it. It's a rare reviewer that gets all the way down to the NMR spectra in the supplementary material, that's for sure. And if one does, and the NMR spectra look reasonably believable, well, what else can you do? Even so, every working chemist has dealt with literature whose procedures Just Don't Work, and all those papers passed some sort of editorial review process at some point.

No, peer review is not going to do much to improve the quality of archival data. If someone really wants to fill up the low-level bins with junk, there's not much stopping them. You could sit down and draw out a bunch of stuff no one's ever made before, come up with plausible paper syntheses of all of it, use software to predict reasonable NMR spectra (which you might want to jitter around a bit to cover your tracks), and just flat-out fake the mass spec and elemental analyses. Presto, another paper that no one will ever read, until eventually someone has a reason to make similar compounds and curses your name in the distant future. The problem is, such papers will do you no real good, since they'll appear in the crappiest journals and pick up no citations from anyone.

Perhaps there should be a way to dump chemical data directly into some archives, the way X-ray data goes into the Protein Data Bank. That wouldn't count for much, but it would capture things for future use. Having it not count much would decrease the incentive for anyone to fill it full of fakery, too, since there would be even less point than usual. And before anyone objects to having a big pile of non-peer-reviewed chemical data like this, keep in mind that we already have one: it's called the patent literature, and it can be quite worthwhile. Although not always.

Comments (31) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

June 24, 2010

All Those Worthless Papers

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

That's what this article at the Chronicle of Higher Education could be called. Instead it's headlined "We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research". Which still gets the point across. Here you have it:

While brilliant and progressive research continues apace here and there, the amount of redundant, inconsequential, and outright poor research has swelled in recent decades, filling countless pages in journals and monographs. Consider this tally from Science two decades ago: Only 45 percent of the articles published in the 4,500 top scientific journals were cited within the first five years after publication. In recent years, the figure seems to have dropped further. In a 2009 article in Online Information Review, Péter Jacsó found that 40.6 percent of the articles published in the top science and social-science journals (the figures do not include the humanities) were cited in the period 2002 to 2006.

As a result, instead of contributing to knowledge in various disciplines, the increasing number of low-cited publications only adds to the bulk of words and numbers to be reviewed. Even if read, many articles that are not cited by anyone would seem to contain little useful information. . .

If anything, this underestimates things. Right next to the never-cited papers are the grievously undercited ones, most of whose referrals come courtesy of later papers published by the same damn lab. One rung further out of the pit are a few mutual admiration societies, where a few people cite each other, but no one else cares very much. And then, finally, you reach a level that has some apparent scientific oxygen in it.

The authors of this article are mostly concerned about the effect this has on academia, since all these papers have to be reviewed by somebody. Meanwhile, libraries find themselves straining to subscribe to all the journals, and working scientists find the literature harder and harder to effectively cover. So why do all these papers get written? One hardly has to ask:

The surest guarantee of integrity, peer review, falls under a debilitating crush of findings, for peer review can handle only so much material without breaking down. More isn't better. At some point, quality gives way to quantity.

Academic publication has passed that point in most, if not all, disciplines—in some fields by a long shot. For example, Physica A publishes some 3,000 pages each year. Why? Senior physics professors have well-financed labs with five to 10 Ph.D.-student researchers. Since the latter increasingly need more publications to compete for academic jobs, the number of published pages keeps climbing. . .

We can also lay off some blame onto the scientific publishers, who have responded to market conditions by starting new journals as quickly as they can manage to launch them. And while there have been good quality journals launched in the past few years, there have been a bunch of losers, too - and never forget, the advent of a good journal will soak up more of the worthwhile papers, lifting up the ever-expanding pool of mediocre stuff (and worse) by capillary action. You have to fill those pages somehow!

If this problem is driven largely by academia, that's where the solution will have to come from, too. The authors suggest several fixes: (1) limit job applications and tenure reviews to the top five or six papers that a person has to offer. (2) Prorate publication records by the quality of the journals that the papers appeared in. (3) Adopt length restrictions in printed journals, with the rest of the information to be had digitally.

I don't think that those are bad ideas at all - but the problem is, they're already more or less in effect. People should already know which journals are the better ones, and look askance at a publication record full of barking, arf-ing papers from the dog pound. Already, the best papers on a person's list count the most. And as for the size of printed journals, well. . .there are some journals that I read all the time whose printed versions I haven't seen in years.

No, these ideas are worthy, but they don't get to the real problem. It's not like all the crappy papers are coming from younger faculty who are bucking for tenure, you know. Plenty more are emitted by well-entrenched groups who just generate things that no one ever really wants to read. I think we've made it too possible for people to have whole scientific careers of complete mediocrity. I mean, what do you do, as a chemist, when you see another paper where someone found a reagent to dehydrate a primary amide to a nitrile? Did you read it? Of course not. Will you ever come back to it and use it? Not too likely, considering that there are eight hundred and sixty reagents that will already do that for you. We get complaints all the time about me-too drugs, but the me-too reaction problem is a real beast.

Now, I realize that by using the word "mediocrity" I'm in danger of confusing the issue. The abilities of scientists are distributed across a wide range - I doubt if it's a true normal distribution, but there are certainly people who are better and worse at this job. But I'm complaining on the absolute scale, rather than the relative scale. I know that there's always going to be a middle mass of scientific papers, from a middle mass of scientists: I just wish that the whole literature was of higher quality overall. A chunk of what now goes into the mid-tier journals should really be filling up the bottom-tier ones, and most of the stuff that goes into those shouldn't be getting done in the first place.

I suppose what bothers me is the number of people who aren't working up to their potential (although I don't always have the best position to argue that from myself!) Too many academic groups seem to me to work on problems that are beneath them. I know that limits in money and facilities keep some people from working on interesting things, but that's rare, compared to the number who'd just plain rather do something more predictable. And write predictable papers about it. Which no one reads.

Comments (40) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

June 15, 2010

California vs. Nature

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

That's the University of California system versus Nature Publishing Group, in case you were wondering. As the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, there's a mighty dispute brewing about the cost of electronic access:

On Tuesday, a letter went out to all of the university's faculty members from the California Digital Library, which negotiates the system's deals with publishers, and the University Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication. The letter said that Nature proposed to raise the cost of California's license for its journals by 400 percent next year. If the publisher won't negotiate, the letter said, the system may have to take "more drastic actions" with the help of the faculty. Those actions could include suspending subscriptions to all of the Nature Group journals the California system buys access to—67 in all, including Nature.

The pressure does not stop there. The letter said that faculty would also organize "a systemwide boycott" of Nature's journals if the publisher does not relent. The voluntary boycott would "strongly encourage" researchers not to contribute papers to those journals or review manuscripts for them. It would urge them to resign from Nature's editorial boards and to encourage similar "sympathy actions" among colleagues outside the University of California system.

NPG's testy response is here, and this is the reply from California. The current points of dispute are how much the publishers are actually raising the prices (site license fees versus the base rate) and how much of a discount the UC system is getting already.

Could there really be a UC boycott? They're large enough (and productive enough) to make that a reasonably credible threat. The Nature journals will certainly survive without submissions from the UC system, although over the last six years they've contributed over five thousand papers to them. But the real danger, I think, is the damage that this could do to Nature's position, and to the whole idea of the high-prestige journals. The scientific publishing world has been feeling the earthquake tremors for some time now. The traditional model (1. Start an academic journal. 2. Charge whopping subscription fees. 3. Profit) seems to be breaking down, in the same way that many other traditional content-distribution pricing models have been.

Nature and its related journals, along with the other top-tier publications, have managed to stay on top (and to charge accordingly). But journal prestige is an artificial construct, a fiction by common consent. A journal has a good reputation because it's hard to publish in and can afford to reject all but the most high-impact papers that it's offered. If people stop offering such papers to it, its prestige will decline. The big-splash papers will go somewhere else, and will perhaps manage to signal their importance in some other way than by the name of the journal they appear in.

This dispute will be worth watching closely. Which side will give in? Will a UC boycott be effective, and could it spread? Remember, from one perspective, other journals have an interest in seeing this happen, since they'll now see the papers that NPG won't. But they might also fear the same thing happening to them if this succeeds. . .

Comments (42) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 25, 2010

A Word to the Wise

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Today's entry on an embarrassingly wrong structure in Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters has a number of people in the comments talking about experiences they've had reviewing for the journal. I've done reviews for them myself, naturally, as well as for other journals. I have too few examples to judge from, but (so far) I have managed to kill off papers at other journals, but I have never managed to kill off a manuscript at BOMCL. I have - apparently like some other people - recommended in the past that a paper be published (if at all) only with major revisions, only to see it sail through basically untouched.

I hope I'm not being unfair here, because there are a lot of hard-working people at the journal. And similar stories can, I'm sure, be told about every other journal (in every other discipline). But I think that BOMCL gets so many manuscripts that their workload is very high. Unfortunately, the journal also publishes a great deal of what it gets. We're unlikely to see the real figures any time soon, but I'd have to guess that the percentage of papers rejected is definitely lower than average.

I also realize that I'm open to accusations of conflict of interest here, since I'm on the editorial board of a competing journal, ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters. What I can promise is that I will, in fact, work to keep any papers that I consider inadequate out of those pages (and, at the same time, to encourage good work to go there). I've tried to do that with BOMCL, too, in my capacity as reviewer, but it just hasn't always worked out.

But perhaps this is something I can do for them: to point out, publicly, that their credibility as a venue for medicinal chemistry results has suffered recently. When people get the impression that work is being sloppily reviewed at a given journal, they wonder how much they should trust the other papers that get published. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters has been around for twenty years now, and has published some very useful stuff over the years. There's a real place for it in the publishing world. But it's been better than it has been recently, and it should be better than it is. I hate to say this. But someone should.

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 24, 2010

Great Moments in Heterocyclic Chemistry

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Something definitely went wrong with this paper: check out the thiophenes, which look through the whole paper just like they do in that abstract. It's another who-let-that-through moment for Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters. Perhaps it's all a plot, to get you to read every paper in the hopes that something bizarre will turn up. . .

Comments (25) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 20, 2010

Ang. Chem. Gets Weirder Every Day

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The fine people at Angewandte Chemie's English edition, who continue to have way too much time on their hands, appear to have declared this 70s and 80s music month. So far I've spotted The Beach Boys, Toni Basil (a particularly strained one), and Elvis Costello.

There are movies, too here's another James Bond reference - but if anyone can tell me where the "Beverley Hills" part comes into this one, other than the desire to reach for a joke, I'd be grateful.

Finally, I have proof that at least one of their English-speaking editors is not only American, but specifically from Baltimore. Number of non-English speakers who will get that reference? To be counted on the fingers of the hands. . .

Update: I get the reference to the movie "Beverley Hills Cop II", but I just don't understand reaching for that reference - other than, of course, to show that you can. And as for the Baltimore one, I hadn't noticed that the authors are from Johns Hopkins, so we have to presume that they're to blame - and that the editors at the journal let that one through, too. . .

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

May 4, 2010

Another Proposal For the Scientific Literature

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I was talking with a colleague yesterday, and I suddenly had an insight into an opportunity in scientific publishing. We were discussing the various computational/modeling papers that you see out in the literature. Some of them are quite interesting, many are worth looking at if it's your particular field - but many others are, well, not so great. I should mention up front that the same objections apply - and how - to the non-computational literature, of course. But there are a number of second-tier (and lower) journals to soak up those sorts of papers in the other disciplines.

What surprises me is that there's no Computational Chemistry Letters or some such. Communications in Computational Chemistry? CADD Comm? This would be the dumping ground for the piles of unconvincing computer-driven stuff that gets sent around by people who have paid a bit too much attention to the sales brochures that came with their software packages.

The barriers for entry to such things have been getting lower and lower, while the real state of the art has been getting more and more complicated. That's created a gap into which too much stuff falls. Who will speak for the bottom-dwelling "We modeled it, therefore it's real" constituency? The advent of systems biology has created more opportunities than ever for these folks. Isn't it time that there was an expensive, low-impact, completely disregardable journal for them, too?

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: In Silico | The Scientific Literature

April 8, 2010

ACS Med Chem Letters

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Since I'm on the editorial board, I should point out that the first full issue of ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters is up, with free access for the occasion. I note with approval Dennis Liotta's lead-off editorial, which mentions that the journal will be introducing a section to highlight key patents - as far as I can tell, this is the first time a med-chem journal has explicitly acknowledged that this is where the real cutting-edge stuff often first appears in the field. (And no, I didn't have anything to do with the current batch of papers, in case anyone's wondering).

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

April 6, 2010

A Brief and Not At All Intemperate Evaluation of the Current Literature

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

In keeping with my Modest Literature Proposal from earlier this year, I would like to briefly point out a Journal of Medicinal Chemistry paper on potential Alzheimer's therapies. Whose lead compound has a nine-carbon alkyl chain in the middle of it. And weighs 491. And has two quaternary nitrogens. Which structural features will, in all likelihood, lead to said compound demonstrating roughly this amount of blood-brain barrier penetration, assuming it reaches sufficient blood levels to get that far. That is all.

Comments (22) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Alzheimer's Disease | Pharmacokinetics | The Scientific Literature

April 1, 2010

About Time

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Science and Nature finally decide to stop beating each other up in chasing after hot papers. The problem with the announcement is that it quotes magazine consultant Rick Rolling, but neglects to link to the video where he explains things in detail.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 31, 2010

Darn It All

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, now, this is a disappointment. In a new Angewandte Chemie paper, a French team reports synthesizing trinitropyrazole. And it's. . .well, it's well-behaved. Surprisingly insensitive. Not that touchy. Might actually be useful as a storable high-energy material that could actually be handled.

The fools! Don't they realize that Angewandte is the place to unload the barely-in-our-plane-of-existence compounds, the sweat-starting, nostril-flaring "How could it blow up? It's in liquid nitrogen!" stuff? Surely there's a better home for things with actual utility, the Journal of Not So Horrible Once You've Made Them, Really, or "That Wasn't So Bad Now, Was It" Communications. Sheesh.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 30, 2010

Animal Studies: Are Too Many Never Published At All?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A new paper in PLoS Biology looks at animal model studies reported for the treatment of stroke. The authors use statistical techniques to try to estimate how many have gone unreported. From a database with 525 sources, covering 16 different attempted therapies (which together come to 1,359 experiments and 19,956 animals), they find that only a very small fraction of the publications (about 2%) report no significant effects, which strongly suggests that there is a publication bias at work here. The authors estimate that there may well be around 200 experiments that showed no significant effect and were never reported, whose absence would account for around one-third of the efficacy reported across the field. In case you're wondering, the therapy least affected by publication bias was melatonin, and the one most affected seems to be administering estrogens.

I hadn't seen this sort of study before, and the methods they used to arrive at these results are interesting. If you plot the precision of the studies (Y axis) versus the effect size (X axis), you should (in theory) get a triangular cloud of data. As the precision goes down, the spread of measurements across the X-axis increases, and as the precision goes up, the studies should start to converge on the real effect of the treatment, whatever that might be. (In this study, the authors looked only at reported changes in infarct size as a measure of stroke efficacy). But in many of the reported cases, the inverted-funnel shape isn't symmetrical - and every single time that happens, it turns out that the gaps are in the left-hand side of the triangle, the not-as-precise and negative-effect regions of the plots. This doesn't appear to be just due to less-precise studies tending to show positive effects for some reason - it strongly suggests that there are negative studies that just haven't been reported.

The authors point out that applying their statistical techniques to reported human clinical studies is more problematic, since smaller (and thus less precise) trials may well involve unrepresentative groups of patients. But animal studies are much less prone to this problem.

The loss of experiments that showed no effect shouldn't surprise anyone - after all, it's long been known that publishing such papers is just plain harder than publishing ones that show something happening. There's an obvious industry bias toward only showing positive data, but there's an academic one, too, which affects basic research results. As the authors put it:

These quantitative data raise substantial concerns that publication bias may have a wider impact in attempts to synthesise and summarise data from animal studies and more broadly. It seems highly unlikely that the animal stroke literature is uniquely susceptible to the factors that drive publication bias. First, there is likely to be more enthusiasm amongst scientists, journal editors, and the funders of research for positive than for neutral studies. Second, the vast majority of animal studies do not report sample size calculations and are substantially underpowered. Neutral studies therefore seldom have the statistical power confidently to exclude an effect that would be considered of biological significance, so they are less likely to be published than are similarly underpowered “positive” studies. However, in this context, the positive predictive value of apparently significant results is likely to be substantially lower than the 95% suggested by conventional statistical testing. A further consideration relating to the internal validity of studies is that of study quality. It is now clear that certain aspects of experimental design (particularly randomisation, allocation concealment, and the blinded assessment of outcome) can have a substantial impact on the reported outcome of experiments. While the importance of these issues has been recognised for some years, they are rarely reported in contemporary reports of animal experiments.

And there's an animal-testing component to these results, too, of course. But lest activists seize on the part of this paper that suggests that some animal testing results are being wasted, they should consider the consequences (emphasis below mine):

The ethical principles that guide animal studies hold that the number of animals used should be the minimum required to demonstrate the outcome of interest with sufficient precision. For some experiments, this number may be larger than those currently employed. For all experiments involving animals, nonpublication of data means those animals cannot contribute to accumulating knowledge and that research syntheses are likely to overstate biological effects, which may in turn lead to further unnecessary animal experiments testing poorly founded hypotheses.

This paper is absolutely right about the obligation to have animal studies mean something to the rest of the scientific community, and it's clear that this can't happen if the results are just sitting on someone's hard drive. But it's also quite possible that for even some of the reported studies to have meant anything, that they would have had to have used more animals in the first place. Nothing's for free.

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Animal Testing | Cardiovascular Disease | Clinical Trials | Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

March 19, 2010

The Referee Reports Are In

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I realize that there have been about one Godzillion of these videos by now (the Michael Jackson one is a particular favorite), but at the same time, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have similar thoughts the last time I had a manuscript rejected:

The movie is, of course, "Downfall" (Der Untergang), and probably many more people have been motivated to see the whole thing thanks to these YouTube clips. I have to turn the sound down a lot to really get into the spirit of the parodies; my German is still sufficient to make the reworked subtitles clash. Which reminds me of a distinctly weird sensation, watching a World War II documentary at home with my father after returning from my German post-doc stint. When archival footage of Hitler came up on the screen I suddenly found that I could follow his speech, and watched in amazement as he pounded the podium, hitting the compound verbs at the end of his sentence.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 16, 2010

Terra Incognita

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I was thinking the other day about the sheer number of reasonable chemical structures that have never been made. Chemical space is famously roomy - that's how we make a living in the drug industry, since we prefer to make things that have never been made before. And it still surprises non-chemists when I tell them that I make new compounds all the time - the feeling, I think, is that anything that's reasonably easy to make surely must have been mined out long ago. Not so. (It's worth remembering, though, that just because something's never been reported doesn't always mean that you can't buy it).

What brought this to mind was a steroid structure that I saw during a presentation. Looking at it like a medicinal chemist, I wondered idly if the carbons in the famous steroid backbone had ever been swapped out much with oxygen or nitrogen atoms. And in a few cases they have (more for oxygen, in some natural products), but for the most part, no. You can drop a tertiary amine into some spots on the steroid framework and immediately come up with no literature hits whatsoever. Many others yield only a handful.

It's worth noting that the partially-aromatized steroids have had some of this kind of work done on them - for example here and here. The aromatic rings give you a bit more of a handle to work with, but even here it's not like the literature is always packed with examples.

So there's as bioactive a scaffold as you could ask for, but many of the simple analogs still haven't been described. To be fair, these azasteroids aren't simple to make, and probably wouldn't have steroid-like activities in many cases. (Their natural receptors sure aren't expecting a basic amine in those spots). But many azasteroids do show biological activities, and I'd be quite surprised if these unknown compounds were pharmacologically inert. It's just that there's been no particular reason to make any of them yet. Chemical space is so huge, and our ability to explore it has been with us for such a relatively short time, that we just haven't gotten around to them yet.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

March 15, 2010

Stem Cell Politics

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There have been complaints that something is going wrong in the publication of stem cell research. This isn't my field, so I don't have a lot of inside knowledge to share, but there appear to have been a number of researchers charging that journals (and their reviewers) are favoring some research teams over others:

The journal editor decides to publish the research paper usually when the majority of reviewers are satisfied. But professors Lovell-Badge and Smith believe that increasingly some reviewers are sending back negative comments or asking for unnecessary experiments to be carried out for spurious reasons.

In some cases they say it is being done simply to delay or stop the publication of the research so that the reviewers or their close colleagues can be the first to have their own research published.

"It's hard to believe except you know it's happened to you that papers have been held up for months and months by reviewers asking for experiments that are not fair or relevant," Professor Smith said.

You hear these sorts of complaints a lot - everyone who's had a paper turned down by a high-profile journal is a potential customer for the idea that there's some sort of backroom dealing going on for the others who've gotten in. But just because such accusations are thrown around frequently doesn't mean that they're never true. I hate to bring the topic up again, but the "Climategate" leaks illustrate just how this sort of thing can be done. Groups of researchers really can try to keep competing work from being published. I just don't know if it's happening in the stem cell field or not.

Comments (16) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

February 19, 2010

Two For One Sale

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A double complaint this morning, and both from the same literature item - if I were charging anything for the blog, I'd say that it's delivering value for the money. At any rate, the first kvetch is something that I know that many chemists have noticed when reading more biology/medical-oriented journals. You'll see some paper that talks about a new compound that does X, Y, and Z. It'll be named with some sort of code, and they'll tell you all about its interesting effects. . .but they don't get around to actually telling you what the damned stuff is.

As I say, this is a chemist's complaint. Many biologists are fine stipulating that there's a compound that will do these interesting things, because they're mostly interested in hearing about the interesting things themselves. It could just be Compound X as far as they're concerned. But chemists want to see what kind of structure it is that causes all these publication-worthy results, and sometimes we go away disappointed.

Or we have to dig. Take this PNAS paper on a broad-spectrum antiviral compound, LJ001. It looks quite interesting, with effects on a number of different viral types, and through a unique mechanism that targets viral membranes. But what is it? You'll look in vain through the whole paper to find out - that compound is LJ001 to you, Jack. You have to go to the supplemental material to find out, and to page 10 at that.

And that brings up the second complaint. LJ001 turns out to be a rhodanine, and regular readers will note that earlier this month some time was spent here talking about just how ugly and undesirable those are. It's very, very hard to get anyone in the drug business to take a compound in that class seriously, because they have such a poor track record. Looking over the small SAR table provided, I note that if you switch that thioamide group (the part that the chemists hate the most) to a regular amide, turning the thing into an thiazolidinedione, you lose all the activity.

TZDs aren't everyone's favorite group, but at least they've made it into marketed drugs. Rhodanines are no one's favorite group, and it would be a good thing of the authors of these papers would realize that, or at least acknowledge it if they do. It's not an irrational prejudice.

Comments (32) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

February 16, 2010

Twitter and Science, Revisited

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So I have a number of people trying to set me straight about Twitter. . .well, I'll see what I can do. For some time I've had it set up just to take 140 characters off the top of each post I do here, to serve as a sort of "I've posted something" alert, and that'll continue. I hardly follow anyone there, true. . .and many of them are non-chemical sources (Iranian politics and the like). What I probably need to do is set up more than one Twitter account, with one reserved for blogging and science. But even then, I don't see how I'll have time to look at it during the day, so people who fire messages back to me via Twitter are still going to come away disappointed.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Blog Housekeeping | The Scientific Literature

February 12, 2010

Who Follows These Things?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

My schedule is all over the place today - events at my kids' school, new projects at work, etc. But I do want to put a quick question out to people: I keep seeing various scientific journals, etc. proudly advertising that they're on Twitter, Facebook, etc. So, does anyone get any use out of that? I can't say that I do, but perhaps I'm just set in my ways, if reading journals by RSS feeds can be called "set in my ways".

I'm willing to be set straight on this, but whenever I see these logos and notices, I can't help but see some editorial meeting that I imagine went on. "Look, everybody's on Twitter, says one person around the table. "Well, I'm not," says an editor, "and I can't for the life of me figure out why I should be. Won't we look idiotic 'tweeting' at people, or whatever it is?" "Did I mention that it won't cost us anything to get all Web 2.0-ed up?" says the first guy, and the motion is carried. . .

Comments (47) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 11, 2010

Another New Med-Chem Journal

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I should also note that the Royal Society of Chemistry is starting its own med-chem communications journal. MedChemComm. Along with the new ACS journal, this now means that medicinal chemists have more places to publish their work than ever before.

Which is a bit of a sour thought, considering that the number of industry-employed medicinal chemists has been dropping for several years now, and the end does not appear to be in sight. We'll see how this affects the publishing world (admittedly, a minor worry). In the short term, people are probably trying to make their patent and publication records look as impressive as possible, so I would think that fewer and fewer publishable results are sitting around in desk drawers. In the long term, though, are we going to see fewer papers in general? (Or failing that, more from academic labs?)

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

February 8, 2010

Polluting the Literature with PAINs

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's an article out from a group in Australia on the long-standing problem of "frequent hitter" compounds. Everyone who's had to work with high-throughput screening data has had to think about this issue, because it's clear that some compounds are nothing but trouble. They show up again and again as hits in all sorts of assays, and eventually someone gets frustrated enough to flag them or physically remove them from the screening deck (although that last option is often a lot harder than you'd think, and compound flags can proliferate to the point that they get ignored).

The larger problem is whether there are whole classes of compounds that should be avoided. It's not an easy one to deal with, because the question turns on how you're running your assays. Some things are going to interfere with fluorescent readouts, by absorbing or emitting light of their own, but that can depend on the wavelengths you're using. Others will mung up a particular coupled assay readout, but leave a different technology untouched.

And then there's the aggregation problem, which we've only really become aware of in the past few years. Some compounds just like to stick together into huge clumps, often taking the assay's protein target (or some other key component) with them. At first, everyone thought "Ah-hah! Now we can really scrub the screening plates of all the nasties!", but it turns out that aggregation itself is an assay-dependent phenomenon. Change the concentrations or added proteins, and whoomph: compounds that were horrible before suddenly behave reasonably, while a new set of well-behaved structures has suddenly gone over to the dark side.

This new paper is another attempt to find "Pan-Assay Interference" compounds or PAINs, as they name them. (This follows a weird-acronym tradition in screening that goes back at least to Vertex's program to get undesirable structures out of screening collections, REOS, for "Rapid Elimination of, uh, Swill"). It will definitely be of interest to people using the AlphaScreen technology, since it's the result of some 40 HTS campaigns using it, but the lessons are worth reading about in general.

What they found was that (as you'd figure) that while it's really hard to blackball compounds permanently with any degree of confidence, the effort needs to be made. Still, even using their best set of filters, 5% of marketed drugs get flagged as problematic screening hits - in fact, hardly any database gives you a warning rate below that, with the exception of a collection of CNS drugs, whose properties are naturally a bit more constrained. Interestingly, they also report the problematic-structure rate for the collections of nine commercial compound vendors, although (frustratingly) without giving their names. Several of them sit around that 5% figure, but a couple of them stand out with 11 or 12% of their compounds setting off alarms. This, the authors surmise, is linked to some of the facile combinatorial-type reactions used to prepare them, particularly ones that leave enones or exo-alkenes in the final structures.

So what kinds of compounds are the most worrisome? If you're going to winnow out anything, you should probably start with these: Rhodanines are bad, which doesn't surprise me. (Abbott and Bristol Myers-Squibb have also reported them as troublesome). Phenol Mannich compounds and phenolic hydrazones are poor bets. And all sort of keto-heterocycles with conjugated exo alkenes make the list. There are several other classes, but those are the worst of the bunch, and I have to say, I'd gladly cross any of them off a list of screening hits.

But not everyone does. As the authors show, there are nearly 800 literature references to rhodanine compounds showing biological effects. A conspicuous example is here, from the good folks at Harvard, which was shown to be rather nonspecifically ugly here. What does all this do for you? Not much:

"Rather than being privileged structures, we suggest that rhodanines are polluting the scientific literature. . .these results reflect the extent of wasted resources that these nuisance compounds are generally causing. We suggest that a significant proportion of screening-based publications and patents may contain assay interference hits and that extensive docking computations and graphics that are frequently produced may often be meaningless. In the case of rhodanines, the answer set represents some 60 patents and we have found patents to be conspicuously prevalent for other classes of PAINS. This collectively represents an enormous cost in protecting intellectual property, much of which may be of little value. . ."

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Drug Assays | Drug Industry History | The Scientific Literature

February 3, 2010

A Modest Literature Proposal

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Looking through the latest papers to show up in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, this one on BACE-1 inhibitor compounds caught my eye. Perhaps I'm about to be unfair to it. At any rate, I'm going to ask of it something it doesn't provide: data in something that's alive. Doesn't have to be a person, a dog, or even a rat. A cell would do: something with a membrane to cross, with metabolic processes, and with the ability to accept or reject someone's new compound. Enzymes just have to sit there and take whatever you throw at them; living systems fight back.

I sometimes think that we'd be better served if each of the medicinal chemistry journals were split. In J. Med. Chem.'s case, we would then have the Journal of In Vitro Medicinal Chemistry and the Journal of In Vivo Medicinal Chemistry. The criteria for publishing in the two journals would be exactly the same, except to get into the latter one, you would have at least had to have tried your compounds out on something besides an in vitro assay. Doesn't mean that they have to have worked - you just have to have looked.

Although the case of compounds with molecular weights of 900 that have four amides and a sulfonamide in them, and are directed against a target in the central nervous system, might still be a bit of a stretch. I supposed what irritates me about this paper is that it starts off talking about Alzheimer's disease. And that's natural enough in a study dedicated to finding inhibitors of BACE-1, but the problem is, Alzheimer's disease occurs in human beings. And these compounds do not look to have much chance of doing anything inside any human's body. The best I can say for them is that they might give someone else an insight into something that they might be able to do to make something that might have a better chance of working.

Cranky folks like me would probably refer to the latter of my two new journals as just "J. Med. Chem.", and would refer to the former one by a variety of other easy-to-remember names. I offer this suggestion for free to the scientific publishing community, who will, I'm sure, reciprocate with things of equal value.

Comments (26) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Alzheimer's Disease | The Central Nervous System | The Scientific Literature

February 2, 2010

Literature Notes

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

So, now that we're in 2010, the journal that introduced the whole idea of a graphical abstract to organic chemistry (Tetrahedron Letters) has finally started including them in their RSS feed. That's how I read journals these days, and I think I have a lot of company, so I'm grateful that they got around to it.

And on another literature note, I wanted to mention that I've accepted an invite to the editorial advisory board of the new ACS journal ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters. You can tell, I guess, when you've been doing this stuff for a while - when I look at the rest of the advisory board, I see people I went to grad school with, people I used to work down the hall from, and so on. The journal has started publishing its first papers; we'll see how it works out, and how it competes with the other short-form outlet for this sort of work, Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters. I promise not to let any anti-Bredt cyclobutenes get past me!

Comments (11) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 29, 2010

Johnson May Have Been On to Something

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The crew at Angewandte Chemie has produced another head-shaking pun in one of their latest abstracts. Read only if (1) you know your 1980s music, and (2) you have a high tolerance for wordplay. When I was in Germany, this sort of joke was known as an "eiskalter" and was greeted with shivers.

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

January 7, 2010

Extortion, Retractions, And More

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Now here's a strange tale, courtesy of Science magazine, about some retracted work from Peter Schultz's group at Scripps. Two papers from 2004 detailed how to incorporate glycoslylated amino acids (glucosamine-serine and galactosamine-threonine) directly into proteins. These featured a lot of work from postdoc Zhiwen Zhang (who later was hired by the University of Texas for a faculty position).

But another postdoc was later having trouble reproducing the work, and in 2006 he made his case for why he thought it was incorrect. Following that:

Schultz says the concerns raised were serious enough that he asked a group of lab members to try to replicate the work in Zhang's Science paper in addition to several other important discoveries Zhang had made. That task, however, was complicated by the fact that Zhang's lab notebooks, describing his experiments in detail, were missing. Schultz says that in the early fall of 2006, the notebooks were in Schultz's office. But at some point after that they were taken without his knowledge and have never resurfaced.

After considerable effort, Schultz says his students were able to replicate most of the work. The biggest exception was the work that served as the basis for the 2004 Science and JACS papers. "It was clear the glycosylated amino acid work could not be reproduced as reported. So we tried to figure out what was going on," Schultz says.

So far, so not-so-good. But here's where things get odd. Around this time (early 2007), Zhang started to get e-mails at Texas saying that unless he send $4000 to an address in San Diego, the writer would expose his "fraud" and cause him to get fired. The messages were signed "Michael Pemulis" - Science doesn't pick up on that pen name, but fans of the late David Foster Wallace will recognize the name of the revengeful practical joker from Infinite Jest.

That brings up another point: the e-mails quoted in the Science article are in somewhat broken English: "you lose job. ... Texas will fire you before you tenure. . ." and that sort of thing. But my belief is that no one who drops the second person possessive while writing would make it far enough into Infinite Jest to meet Micheal Pemulis and use him as an appropriate alias for an extortion plot.

At any rate, after the San Diego police got involved, they told Zhang that they had a suspect, but Zhang decided not to press charges. That fall, though, "Pemulis" dropped the bomb, with a hostile anonymous letter to everyone involved - officials at Scripps and UT-Austin, the editors at Science, etc. In 2009, Zhang was denied tenure. The postdoc mentioned above (now at Cardiff) has published a paper in JBC detailing the problems with the original work. (He denies having anything to do with the missing lab notebooks or the threats made to Zhang). And everyone involved is still wondering just what is going on. . .

I certainly have no idea. But I can say this: although I've spent a lot more time in industry than in academia, a disproportionate number of the people I've worked with over the years that I consider to have had serious mental problems are still from my academic years. Whoever "Pemulis" is, I'd put him or her into that category. Grad students and post-docs are under a lot of pressure, and some of them are at a point in their lives when their internal problems are starting to seriously affect them.

Comments (49) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Biological News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

January 5, 2010

Run It Past the Chemists

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I missed this paper when it came out back in October: "Reactome Array: Forging a Link Between Metabolome and Genome". I'd like to imagine that it was the ome-heavy title itself that drove me away, but I have to admit that I would have looked it over had I noticed it.

And I probably should have, because the paper has been under steady fire since it came out. It describes a method to metabolically profile a variety of cells though the use of a novel nanoparticle assay. The authors claim to have immobilized 1675 different biomolecules (representing common metabolites and intermediates) in such a way that enzymes recognizing any of them will set off a fluorescent dye signal. It's an ingenious and tricky method - in fact, so tricky that doubts set in quickly about the feasibility of doing it on 1675 widely varying molecular species.
And the chemistry shown in the paper's main scheme looks wonky, too, which is what I wish I'd noticed. Take a look - does it make sense to describe a positively charged nitrogen as a "weakly amine region", whatever that is? Have you ever seen a quaternary aminal quite like that one before? Does that cleavage look as if it would work? What happens to the indane component, anyway? Says the Science magazine blog:

In private chats and online postings, chemists began expressing skepticism about the reactome array as soon as the article describing it was published, noting several significant errors in the initial figure depicting its creation. Some also questioned how a relatively unknown group could have synthesized so many complex compounds. The dismay grew when supplementary online material providing further information on the synthesized compounds wasn’t available as soon as promised. “We failed to put it in on time. The data is quite voluminous,” says co-corresponding author Peter Golyshin of Bangor University in Wales, a microbiologist whose team provided bacterial samples analyzed by Ferrer’s lab.

Science is also coming under fire. “It was stunning no reviewer caught [the errors],” says Kiessling. Ferrer says the paper’s peer reviewers did not raise major questions about the chemical synthesis methods described; the journal’s executive editor, Monica Bradford, acknowledged that none of the paper’s primary reviewers was a synthetic organic chemist. “We do not have evidence of fraud or fabrication. We do have concerns about the inconsistencies and have asked the authors' institutions to try to sort all of this out by examining the original data and lab notes,” she says.

The magazine published an "expression of concern" before the Christmas break, saying that in response to questions the authors had provided synthetic details that "differ substantially" from the ones in the original manuscript. An investigation is underway, and I'll be very interested to see what comes of it.

Comments (45) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Analytical Chemistry | Biological News | Drug Assays | The Scientific Literature

December 17, 2009

Why Don't Chemists Communicate? (Or Do We?)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a commentary in the December issue of Nature Chemistry asking why our field has been comparatively slow to adopt web-based technologies like arXiv and GenBank:

"New web-based models of scholarly communication have made a significant impact in some scientific disciplines, but chemistry is not one of them. . .why do similar initiatives in chemistry fail to gain critical mass and widespread usage?"

The article considers several possibilities - among others, that (a) other fields aren't actually quite as techno-webby as we think they are, or (b) there might be a mismatch between chemistry as a discipline and the current tools, one that isn't found in some other fields of science, or (c) that there could be just a few defined issues that need to be addressed, then things will take off, or (d) that chemists already have the communication tools that they need, anyway.

The authors point out that technical hurdles can probably be ruled out as an explanation, and in many cases they can also rule out "because no one's ever tried". Elsevier, for example, tried to get an arXiv-type preprint server going a few years ago, but that bombed pretty thoroughly (not least, I think, because people were naturally a bit suspicious of such an effort being launched under Elsevier's banner, and because the ACS journals refused to take manuscripts that had appeared there). Nature has been trying something similar in the last couple of years with Nature Precedings, but I'm not sure if it's taking off or not. I've never really used it myself, if that's a data point worth mentioning.

One key point that the authors make is that totally new means of communication don't just pop into existence in a scientific discipline. The ones that catch on tend to build on things that the scientists are already doing. I think that physicists, for example, were already more used to sharing preprints of articles, and that the arXiv server just helped them do that more easily. Chemists, on the other hand Just Don't Do That, so announcing to them that Now They Can! isn't enough to bring in participants.

On the same chemistry-is-different front, the commentary also notes that our field has always had an emphasis on making stuff, although they don't put it quite that way. The computer is not usually the machine that produces our results; it's just the means by which we keep track of them. And we don't generate the piles of (sometimes) reusable data that physicists do, so much as we generate new substances and new ways of making and using them. The data are there to show that we did, in fact, make what we said we made. Those piles of data also tend to hold their value much longer than in other fields, too - after all, a compound is a compound, and its NMR spectrum doesn't change. If you want to know how some class of compounds behave, a paper from fifty years ago (or more) can be a perfectly good place to look.

Also in contrast to the physics community, chemistry is broken up into many smaller units. You'll never see a chemistry paper with as many co-authors as a high-energy physics paper, because we don't have to run our experiments on the One Big Machine In the Whole World. It may be that parts of the physics world have basically been forced to collaborate more widely, because that's the only way to get anything done. We also have a wide range of sub-disciplines, what with physics on one side of us and biology on another, and these all have their own idiosyncracies. (And, of course, many of us work in areas where we basically can't share some information until we're good and ready to).

One thing that the whole article doesn't quite address though, is: what would these wonderful new communication modes be, actually? And how would they improve my research life? Electronic literature searching certainly has, as has the availability of journals online. Electronic notebooks definitely have. What else would? I'm sure that there must be a few things, but I find that some of the Web 2.0 info-heaven visions that people outside the field talk about don't do much to excite me. It's like seeing some scientific abstract online, and then noting the little row of social-media icons below it, inviting me to submit the thing to Digg, Reddit, or what have you. Or to go visit the journal's page on Facebook, of all things. Why I'd do that is something I haven't quite figured out yet.

But hey, I'm not as much of a Luddite as that makes me sound. I also note this passage from the article (emphasis mine):

An increasing number of scientists have adopted blogging as a means of informal communication. Typicall, the writing style of blogs is conversational, and humorous content gets mixed with posts of a more serious tone. Some blogs are dedicated to educating lay audiences, others aim at an academic discussion, and many are like personal diaries. At this point in time, many science bloggers are assumed to be less than 30 years old, and are primarily journalists, teachers, graduate students, or young researcher. Hardly any established scientists maintain a blog - after all, blogging regularly is very time-consuming. The question remains open whether these will remain fringe phenomena or become part of the mainstream communication in science.

Comments (44) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 15, 2009

Manfred Christl Rides Again (Bonus Idiotic Lab Accident, Too)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Readers may remember the incident a couple of years ago where a paper was published claiming the synthesis of some very odd-looking 12-membered ring compounds. Prof. Manfred Christl of the University of Würzburg noticed something odd about this reaction, though, namely that it had already been run over a hundred years ago and was known to give a completely different product. (As I pointed out here, though, you didn't need to unearth the ancient literature to know this; ten minutes of looking through the modern stuff would have done the trick, too).

Well, Christl's back with another takedown of some improperly assigned weirdo 12-membered rings. This time, it's Cheryl Stevenson of Illinois State that gets the treatment, with this paper from last year that claims several interesting ring structures from 1,5-hexadiyne and base. Christl had trouble believing the mechanism, and on closer inspection had trouble believing the NMR assignments. Then, on even closer inspection, he assigned the structure as a simple isomerization of one of the triple bonds, and found that this exact reaction (and product) had first been reported in 1961 (and several times afterwards). Not good.

As it turns out, I almost certainly made some of the compound myself, by mistake, back in mid-1983. That was the summer before I started my first year of grad school, and I was doing work in Ned Porter's lab at Duke. One of the starting materials I needed was. . .1,5, hexadiyne, which you couldn't buy. So I made it, in real grad-school fashion. I homocoupled allyl Grignard to get the 1,5-hexadiene (which even if you could buy back then, we didn't). Then I reacted that with bromine and made the only six-carbon molecule with four bromines on it that I ever hope to make. Reacting that with freshly prepared sodium amide in ammonia gave the smelly di-yne, in crappy yield after distillation. I can still see it: me heating up a column full of glass beads, then turning to Steve, the postdoc in the next hood, and making a bad joke about Herman Hesse while David Bowie's "Modern Love" played on the radio. . .ah, those days, they will not come again.

At any rate, I went on to react the compound with bases under different conditions, trying (in vain) to alkylate both of those terminal alkynes, and thus passed the last of my summer, in exactly the way my two previous summers of research had passed: unsuccessfully. This latest paper, though, makes me think that I was probably turning my starting material instead into exactly the diene that Christl is talking about. I should have hit the library harder myself, although (to be fair) there are references that tell you that you can do that alkylation, and digging through the literature was a good deal more time-consuming back then that it is now.

That lab accident, you say? Well, that happened when I was making a big batch of sodium amide. You start that prep off like a Birch reduction - condense a bunch of liquid ammonia into a flask, and start chucking sodium metal into it. The big difference is that you add a bit of ferric chloride to the mix, which kicks things over at the end. After you've dissolved your sodium, to give you the bronzy purple-blue of solvated electrons, you take the flask out of the cold bath to let the ammonia reflux. At that point, the whole thing suddenly clears, dramatically revealing grey lumps of sodium amide rolling around on the bottom of a pond of plain ol' ammonia, without a solvated electron in sight. (I have, in years since, seen a couple of people refer to the blue stage of the reaction as sodium amide, which it ain't, and I can get quite cranky and pedantic about it).

One afternoon I was whipping up a batch of this stuff, when something starting going on inside the flask. I don't recall what made me take a look at the ammonia solution, but since there was so much bronze gorp on the side of the one-liter three-neck, I had to lean in and look down near the central joint. Whereupon my hair wound itself immediately around the greased shaft of the overhead stirrer, pulling my head in toward the whole setup and jamming my nose into the side of the flask. I fumbled for the switch of the stir motor, feeling like George Jetson as I shouted for someone to give me a hand, and watch with interest as the dry ice bath bubbled along an inch away from my face.

Steve the postdoc came to my aid, shutting off the grinding motor which was doggedly trying to wind me headfirst around the stirrer shaft. We unreeled my hair from the whole contraption, with me cursing foully and Steve merrily making jokes of the "Hair today, gone tomorrow" kind, with side comments about me getting too wrapped up in my work. Those days, as I said, will not come again.

Comments (35) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: How Not to Do It | The Scientific Literature

December 8, 2009

What The Hey? (Abstract Abstracts, Part II)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This one gets my Least Informative Abstract award - it crossed my RSS feed recently, and while it may be a very interesting paper, there's no way to tell from this illustration. The text below it, which shows up on the actual ACS abstract page (but not on the RSS feed) is somewhat more informative, and Zewail's name alone is enough to make me take a look at the full paper. But that illustration. . .to think that I was complaining about a bunch of colored dots and the way Nicolaou colors the inside of his aromatic rings. . .ah, those were simpler times.

Comments (8) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

December 1, 2009

Climategate and Scientific Conduct

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Everyone has heard about the "Climategate" scandal by now. Someone leaked hundreds of megabytes of information from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, and the material (which appears to be authentic) is most interesting. I'm not actually going to comment on the climate-change aspect of all this, though. I have my own opinions, and God knows everyone else has one, too, but what I feel needs to be looked at is the scientific conduct. I'm no climatologist, but I am an experienced working scientist - so, is there a problem here?

I'll give you the short answer: yes. I have to say that there appears to be several, as shown by many troubling features in the documents that have come out. The first one is the apparent attempts to evade the UK's Freedom of Information Act. I don't see how these messages can be interpreted in any other way as an attempt to break the law, and I don't see how they can be defended:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

A second issue is a concerted effort to shape what sorts of papers get into the scientific literature. Again, this does not seem to be a matter of interpretation; such messages as this, this, and this spell out exactly what's going on. You have talk of getting journal editors fired:

This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.
I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

And of trying to get papers blocked from being referenced:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Two questions arise: is this defensible, and does such behavior take place in other scientific disciplines? Personally, I find this sort of thing repugnant. Readers of this site will know that I tend to err on the side of "Publish and be damned", preferring to let the scientific literature sort itself out as ideas are evaluated and experiments are reproduced. I support the idea of peer review, and I don't think that every single crazy idea should be thrown out to waste everyone's time. But I set the "crazy idea" barrier pretty low, myself, remembering that a lot of really big ideas have seemed crazy at first. If a proposal has some connection with reality, and can be tested, I say put it out there, and the more important the consequences, the lower the barrier should be. (The flip side, of course, is that when some oddball idea has been tried and found wanting, its proponents should go away, to return only when they have something sturdier. That part definitely doesn't work as well as it should.)

So this "I won't send my work to a journal that publishes papers that disagree with me" business is, in my view, wrong. The East Anglia people went even farther, though, working to get journal editors and editorial boards changed so that they would be more to their liking, and I think that that's even more wrong. But does this sort of thing go on elsewhere?

It wouldn't surprise me. I hate to say that, and I have to add up front that I've never witnessed anything like this personally, but it still wouldn't surprise me. Scientists often have very easily inflamed egos, and divide into warring camps all too easily. But while it may have happened somewhere else, that does not make it normal (and especially not desirable) scientific behavior. This is not a standard technique by which our sausage is made over here.

What I've seen in organic chemistry are various attempts to steer papers to particular reviewers (or evade other ones). And I've seen people fire off angry letters to journal editors about why some particular paper was published (and why the letter writer's manuscript in response had not been accepted in turn, likely as not). The biggest brawl of them all was still going early in my career (having started before I was born): the fight over the nonclassical norbornyl cation, the very mention of which is still enough to make some older chemists put their hands over their ears and start to hum loudly. That one involved (among many others) two future Nobel Prize winners (H. C. Brown and George Olah), and got very heated indeed - but I still don't recall either one of them trying to get journal editors fired after publishing rival manuscripts. You don't do that sort of thing.

And that brings up an additional problem with all this journal curating: the CRU people have replied to their critics in the past by saying that more of their own studies have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. This is disingenuous when you're working at the same time to shape the peer-reviewed literature into what you think it should look like.

A third issue I want to comment on are the problems with the data and its analysis. I have deep sympathy for the fellow who tried to reconcile the various poorly documented and conflicting data sets and buggy, unannotated code that the CRU has apparently depended on. And I can easily see how this happens. I've been on long-running projects, especially some years ago, where people start to lose track of which numbers came from where (and when), where the underlying raw data are stored, and the history of various assumptions and corrections that were made along the way. That much is normal human behavior. But this goes beyond that.

Those of us who work in the drug industry know that we have to keep track of such things, because we're making decisions that could eventually run into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of our own money. And eventually we're going to be reviewed by regulatory agencies that are not staffed with our friends, and who are perfectly capable of telling us that they don't like our numbers and want us to go spend another couple of years (and another fifty or hundred million dollars) generating better ones for them. The regulatory-level lab and manufacturing protocols (GLP and GMP) generate a blizzard of paperwork for just these reasons.

But the stakes for climate research are even higher. The economic decisions involved make drug research programs look like roundoff errors. The data involved have to be very damned good and convincing, given the potential impact on the world economy, through both the possible effects of global warming itself and the effects of trying to ameliorate it. Looking inside the CRU does not make me confident that their data come anywhere close to that standard:

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

I do not want the future of the world economy riding on this. And what's more, it appears that the CRU no longer has much of their original raw data. It appears to have been tossed over twenty years ago. What we have left, as far as I can see, is a large data set of partially unknown origin, which has been adjusted by various people over the years in undocumented ways. If this is not the case, I would very much like the CRU to explain why not, and in great detail. And I do not wish to hear from people who wish to pretend that everything's just fine.

The commentator closest to my views is Clive Crook at The Atlantic, whose dismay at all this is unhidden. I'm not hiding mine, either. No matter what you think about climate change, if you respect the scientific endeavor, this is very bad news. Respect has to be earned. And it can be lost.

Comments (171) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Current Events | General Scientific News | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

November 28, 2009

Recommended Books For Medicinal Chemists, Part One

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I asked recently for suggestions on the best books on med-chem topics, and a lot of good ideas came in via the comments and e-mail. Going over the list, the most recommended seem to be the following:

For general medicinal chemistry, you have Bob Rydzewski's Real World Drug Discovery: A Chemist's Guide to Biotech and Pharmaceutical Research. Many votes also were cast for Camille Wermuth's The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry. For getting up to speed, several readers recommend Graham Patrick's An Introduction to Medicinal Chemistry. And an older text that has some fans is Richard Silverman's The Organic Chemistry of Drug Design and Drug Action.

Process chemistry is its own world with its own issues. Recommended texts here are Practical Process Research & Development by Neal Anderson and Process Development: Fine Chemicals from Grams to Kilograms by Stan Lee (no, not that Stan Lee) and Graham Robinson.

Case histories of successful past projects are found in Drugs: From Discovery to Approval by Rick Ng and also in Walter Sneader's Drug Discovery: A History.

Another book that focuses on a particular (important) area of drug discovery is Robert Copeland's Evaluation of Enzyme Inhibitors in Drug Discovery.

For chemists who want to brush up on their biology, readers recommend Terrence Kenakin's A Pharmacology Primer, Third Edition: Theory, Application and Methods and Molecular Biology in Medicinal Chemistry by Nogrady and Weaver.

Overall, one of the most highly recommended books across the board comes from the PK end of things: Drug-like Properties: Concepts, Structure Design and Methods: from ADME to Toxicity Optimization by Kerns and Di. For getting up to speed in this area, there's Pharmacokinetics Made Easy by Donald Birkett.

In a related field, the standard desk reference for toxicology seems to be Casarett & Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Since all of us make a fair number of poisons (as we eventually discover), it's worth a look.

There's a first set - more recommendations will come in a following post (and feel free to nominate more worthy candidates if you have 'em).

Comments (21) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Book Recommendations | Drug Development | Life in the Drug Labs | Pharmacokinetics | The Scientific Literature | Toxicology

November 12, 2009

Massaging the Data for Neurontin?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a disturbing article out at the New England Journal of Medicine on studies conducted on Neurontin (gabapentin) for various unapproved indications. Parke-Davis (and later Pfizer) looked at a wide range of possible indications for the drug - migraine, neuropathic pain, bipolar disorder, and more. That in itself isn't unusual, since CNS drugs often have rather broad and poorly defined mechanisms, and it's not like we understand any of them all that well.

What is unusual is the pattern found when comparing the internal reports with the published versions that showed up in the literature. The authors found that:

"More than half the clinical trials that we included in our analysis (11 of 20) were not published as full-length research articles. For 7 of the 9 trials that were published as full-length research articles, a statistically significant primary outcome was reported, and for more than half these trials, the outcome specified in the published report differed from the outcome originally described in the protocol. Three of the four trials with an unchanged primary outcome had statistically significant results for the protocol-specified primary outcome. Secondary outcomes also frequently differed between the protocol and the published report. Thus, trials with findings that were not statistically significant (P≥0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome, according to the internal documents, either were not published in full or were published with a changed primary outcome. . .all the changes that took place between what was specified in the protocol, what was known before publication (as presented in the internal company research reports), and what was reported to the public led to a more favorable presentation in the medical literature. . ."

The authors go on to point out that changing a primary outcome after you see the data is, in fact, a statistical sin (although that's not quite the phrase they use!) You really can't go around doing that, because you can end up chasing after random chance (and avoiding that is the whole point of running well-controlled trials). This does not cover Pfizer and Parke-Davis with glory, but it's worth noting that there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to this practice:

"Our study is based on a relatively small number of trials undertaken to test a single drug manufactured by a single company and its successors. Furthermore, if a major purpose of the studies we examined was to promote off-label uses of gabapentin, the selective reporting we observed could be more extreme than that observed for studies conducted for other reasons. Previous studies in different settings have shown evidence of these same biases, however. Indeed, selective outcome reporting does not appear to be limited to studies funded by drug companies. Chan and colleagues examined published trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and found that 40% of stated primary outcomes differed between the protocol and the published report. In addition, we cannot be certain that selective reporting was a decision made by employees of Pfizer and Parke-Davis, since the authors of the published reports included nonemployees. We did not systematically assess the methodologic quality of the included trials as described in the publications we examined. Previous research has indicated that quality scores are higher for trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry than for trials conducted by not-for-profit entities, although reports from industry-sponsored trials have potentially distorted the scientific record because of other, less easily measured study factors."

That doesn't get the folks who conducted these gabapentin studies off the hook, although I should note that Pfizer disputes the conclusions of this article (as you'd certainly think that they would). And it's also worth noting that some of its authors have done work for the plaintiffs in suits against Pfizer over gabapentin (thus all the familiarity with the internal company documents, which came to light during discovery proceedings). But again, I don't see how that negates the paper's conclusions, and if Pfizer has any hard data that would do so, I think they should produce it with all speed.

And no, it's just a coincidence that this post involve Pfizer, after I've been going on about their merger business all week. Unfortunately, I think that they're probably not the only company that could be pointed at. But we in the industry shouldn't have things like this for others to uncover in the first place. Should we?

Comments (12) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Clinical Trials | The Central Nervous System | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

November 4, 2009

Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been. . .?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You're supposed to disclose conflicts of interest if you're the author of a scientific paper. For the most part, everyone does, but it's those times that the system breaks down that cause all the trouble. Does this author actually earn a side income from Company X? Is that author actually about to start a new company based on the discovery that's being reported so breathlessly? And does this other author have a big stock position in company Y, whose price will be affected by this new paper? Journal editors want to know about these things, as do readers.

But how far do we go with this idea? An editorial in BioCentury (free PDF version) takes up arms against a new rule for non-financial disclosures from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. It requires authors to "report any personal, professional, political, institutional, religious, or other associations that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work". And it's the inclusion of the words "personal", "political", and "religious" that could cause trouble.

Or maybe it's the inclusion of the word "reasonable". That's a common legal-argument adjective, but on the whole, people are not reasonable when it comes to their political or religious beliefs. (You may have noticed that there's been a debate for several centuries now about whether religious belief has anything to do with reason at all, but I think we'll try to stay out of that one). A dedicated atheist may consider it quite reasonable to want, say, any biological publication featuring Francis Collins of NIH to always feature a statement that Collins is a born-again Christian with a strong interest in reconciling his beliefs with scientific practice. An evangelical Christian reader, on the other hand, may want to have the biology papers flagged for the authors who do not see the hand of a Creator in their field of study. Which of these is "reasonable", if either?

The situation doesn't get any easier when you move towards politics. Do we really want to start listing party affiliations or the like? I realize that the journal editors have no intention of doing any such thing, but no one ever intends for the worms to get so far out of the can, either. When a really contentious issue comes up (such as global warming), plenty of reasonable readers (or perhaps I mean readers who are otherwise reasonable!) would want to see the complete political disclosure done on the authors of every paper, the better to sniff out Error, Self-Interest, and Collusion from either side of the debate.

How are we going to draw these particular lines, and how are we going to draw them in any kind of consistent fashion? Consistency is going to be very hard to achieve. The BioCentury piece points out a recent major disclosure glitch by the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, and if we go into the full empty-out-your-pockets mode, I worry that the arguments may never cease.

And I've even made it to the last paragraph without mentioning the libertarian none-of-your-business objections to the whole idea. Your thoughts?

Comments (14) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

November 3, 2009

That Didn't Take Very Long

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Back in late September I wrote about a controversial paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It attracted comment for its way-out-there hypothesis: that caterpillars and other larvae arose through a spectacular interspecies gene transfer rather than through conventional evolutionary processes. And it may have been the last paper to make it into the journal by the now-eliminated "Track III" route, which allowed members to essentially cherry-pick their own reviewers. This paper may well have hastened the disappearance of that system, actually - it created quite an uproar.

At the time, I wrote that the paper's hypothesis seemed very likely to be wrong, but at least the author had proposed some means to test it. Now in the latest PNAS come a letter and a full article on the subject. Both mention the testability of the original paper, and go on to point out that such tests have already been done. The paper is written in a tone of exasperation:

Williamson suggested that "many corollaries of my hypothesis are testable." We agree and note that most of the tests have already been carried out, the results of which are readily available in the recent literature and online databases. Here, we set aside (i) the complete absence of evidence offered by Williamson in support of his hypothesis, (ii) his apparent determination to ignore the enormous errors in current understanding of inheritance, gene expression, cell fate specification, morphogenesis, and other phenomena that are implied by his hypothesis, and (iii) the abundant empirical evidence for the evolution and loss of larval forms by natural selection. Instead, we focus on Williamson's molecular genetic predictions concerning genome size and content in insects, velvet worms, and several marine taxa, and we point out the readily available data that show those predictions to be easily rejected.

And you know, they really should set aside those first three points. Entertaining as it is to read this sort of thing, the real way to demolish a paper like Williamson's is to rip it up scientifically, rather than hurl insults at it (however well-justified they might be). There seems to be plenty of room to work in. For example, Williamson predicts that a class of parasitic barnacle will be found to not be barnacles at all, and to have an abnormally large genome, with material from three different sorts of organisms. Actually, though, these organisms have smaller genomes than usual, and from their genes they appear to be perfectly reasonable relatives of other barnacles.

And so on. Williamson predicts that the genomes of insects with caterpillar-like larval stages will tend to be larger than those without, but the data indicate, if anything, a trend in the opposite direction. His predictions for specific insects don't pan out, nor do his predictions about the genome size of velvet worms and many other cases. If I read the paper right, not one of Williamson's many predictions actually goes his way. In some cases, he appears to cite genome size data that line up with his hypothesis, but miss citing similar organisms that contradict it.

So that would appear to be that. Indeed, as the authors of the latest PNAS paper mention, one might have thought so years ago, since these very authors have shot down some of Williamson's work before. That's the real problem here. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are willing to be spectacularly wrong, but that starts to evaporate when they don't realize that they've been spectacularly wrong. Williamson appears to have had a fair hearing for his ideas, and as far as I can tell, they've come up well short. And while we need brave renegades, cranks are already in long supply.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature | Who Discovers and Why

October 13, 2009

Those Zanies at Angewandte Chemie

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've been meaning for some time to acknowledge whoever it is at Angewandte Chemie that works in so many odd musical references in the abstracts. There are the usual runs of weak puns - and don't you wish that Nature, among other journals, would consider how unintelligible those jokes are as headlines in their RSS feeds? Lukeward wordplay is the standard of wit for most scientific prose, and I've been guilty of it myself. (I have to say, though, this one rises above the pack, this one is fairly hard to take, and this one and this one definitely cross the pain threshold).

But I wonder how many readers have noted recent references to Mike Oldfield, Ace of Base, Offspring, and even the Sex Pistols? Have the editors noticed, for that matter? (This joke suggests a speaker of American English is at work, since I doubt most Germans have heard of the American Automobile Association).

And I suppose that the "Beer Barrel Polka" and "On Top of Old Smokey" can't be left off this list, either. Nor can other pop-culture name checks to Marvel Comics and the original Star Trek. Someone over there's having a good time. . .

Note: this has been going on for some time. Carbon-Based Curiosities adduces some other examples from about a year ago, including ricochet shots off "My Sharona", Chic, Jimi Hendrix, the Terminator movies, and the X-Files. . .

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

October 9, 2009

I'll See Your Conflicts, and Raise You?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There seems to be some finger-pointing going on about conflicts of interest in the scientific and medical literature. According to this piece in Nature Medicine, a recent conference in Vancouver on peer review featured statements such as this:

"We absolutely should not let up on our scrutiny of industry," says Karen Woolley, a co-author of one of the new studies and chief executive officer of the professional medical writing company ProScribe, based in Queensland, Australia. "But why are we always pointing our finger over there? There's an elephant in the room, and that's the nonfinancial conflicts of interest in academia."

I hope that ProScribe wasn't involved in that Australian journal scandal. But even though the head of a medical writing company clearly has a gigantic axe to grind here, the point isn't invalid. Academia has pressures of its own to publish, and lot of shaky stuff gets sent out under them.

Under the auspices of (the Council on Publishing Ethics), (consultant Liz) Wager dug through PubMed files to see how many papers had been retracted between 1988 and 2008. She found 529, and, in a close study of a randomly selected set of 312, she judged that only 28% were due to "honest error". Among the rest, some of the largest chunks were due to authors found publishing the same results more than once (18%), plagiarism (15%), fabrication (5%) and falsification (4%) of data. Taking into account an additional 1% in the 'other misconduct' category, the unethical reasons stacked up to 43%.

Many, perhaps most, of these papers seemed to have been unlikely to have been funded by industry. And there are, of course, plenty of rotten papers out there that never get retracted at all, in many cases because no one reads them or notices that they're a rehash of what someone else has already published. The Deja Vu people are starting to cut into that pile, though, and it's a big one.

There's a danger of all this turning into an exchange of tu quoque arguments between industry, academia, and the publishers. I think there's common ground to agree, though, that all sorts of pressures exist to publish work that shouldn't be published, and that everyone has a common interest in making sure that this doesn't happen. And industry still has a bigger responsibility, since (1) it has more money to cause trouble, if it wants to, and (2) the sorts of things it works on often have more immediate relevance to the outside world. If some obscure faculty member somewhere published reheated work in a series of low-end journals, he's only wasting the time of a limited number of people. A publication involving clinical trial data, though, can send ripples out a lot farther and faster.

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature

September 30, 2009

Ignoring Patents?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

There's a letter in the latest Nature from two researchers in Halifax that makes a point which isn't made often enough. Why do so many papers in the literature ignore patent references?

Why are patent citations so conspicuously absent across academic journals, with most even omitting formatting instructions for these in their author guidelines? Patents present novel, rigorously reviewed unpublished work, as well as providing an unmatched resource for detail.

We randomly selected one month (December 2008) and reviewed all citations in the reviews, articles and letters/reports in Nature (1,773 citations) and Science (1,367). These citations included textbooks, preprints and abstracts — but no patents.

They go on to point out that searching the patent literature, which traditionally was rather a pain, is much easier now, as is access to the patents themselves. And they have a point. When I was in graduate school in the 1980s, getting a procedure out of a patent was really considered an absolute last resort - it was a special order in the library, and you had this vague feeling that there was some sort of trickiness going on, that none of those syntheses were ever actually supposed to work, anyway.

Not so. While the patent literature is indeed full of junk, the open literature is, too. They're not exactly peer-reviewed, true - but journal papers have a much lower chance of having to stand up in court, so things sort of even out. And as far as organic synthesis is concerned, patents are full of real procedures to make real things (and often enough, with real spectral data to support the claims). Most of the compounds I've made in my career that have seen any light of day at all have done so in patents, and they're real as can be.

I've complained several times when refereeing papers for publication about the lack of relevant patent citations in them. And I'd advise others to do the same - this branch of the scientific literature deserves its due.

Comments (23) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP | The Scientific Literature

September 23, 2009

PNAS Shuts a Door

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've written before here about how I actually like reading the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). It's a journal that has published a lot of groundbreaking work, and a fair amount of nonsense, and that mix is largely due to its unusual paths to publication.

Well, one of those paths is drying up. The academy has decided to stop the "communicated by" option (Track III), where someone can approach a PNAS member and ask them to send in a manuscript (each member could do this up to twice a year). Some members seem to mourn the passing of an old tradition, while others are glad that they don't have to pick and choose between manuscripts from their friends. Science has some details, and you can see the PNAS announcement here.

One of the things that may have either sped this along, or at least made people think about the decision more, was a recent paper by Donald Williamson, communicated by Lynn Margulis. Williamson presents an evolutionary hypothesis that is controversial to say the least, the idea that larvae (caterpillars, etc.) are the result of a wholesale gene transfer between completely different phyla. I think that this idea is very likely to be wrong, but in Williamson's defense, he proposes some ways to test it - and if by some chance he's right, he'll rewrite a big chunk of evolutionary theory.

Some people may look at the latest PNAS move and think "Good, now we won't have any more craziness like that caterpillar stuff". But I actually like to see a bit of such craziness, and I worry that there are already too few outlets for it to see publication. It may not have been an appropriate paper for PNAS - but where else would it have been published at all?

Comments (15) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 14, 2009

Abstract Abstracts

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Maybe I'm just cranky, or cranky on the subject of design and presentation, but this sort of chemical structure drawing rubs me the wrong way. I'd have a much better chance of understanding the transformation without all the colored dots; they don't seem to be adding anything.

And while I'm in get-off-my-lawn mode, the similar trendlet of coloring the interiors of ring structures annoys me, too. Nicolaou seems to enjoy doing this (here's a recent example), and I can't say that it adds much to my understanding.

OK, Andy Rooney mode off. For now.

Comments (43) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature

September 10, 2009

To What End?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I was looking through my RSS feed of journal articles this morning, and came across this new one in J. Med. Chem.. Now, there's nothing particularly unusual about this work. The authors are exploring a particular subtype of serotonin receptor (5-HT6), using some chemotypes that have been looked at in serotinergic ligands before. They switch the indole to an indene, put in a sulfonamide, change the aminoethyl side chain to a guanidine, and. . .wait a minute.

Guanidine? I thought that the whole point of making a 5-HT6 ligand was to get it into the brain, and guanidines don't have the best reputation for allowing you to do that. (They're not the easiest thing in the world to even get decent oral absorption from, either, come to think of it). So I looked through the paper to see if there were any in vivo numbers, and as far as I can see, there aren't.

Now, that's not necessarily the fault of the paper's authors. They're from an academic med-chem lab in Barcelona, and animal dosing (and animal PK measurements) aren't necessarily easy to get unless you have a dedicated team that does such things. But, still. The industrial medicinal chemist in me looks at these structures, finds them unlikely to ever reach their intended site of action, can find no evidence in the paper's references that anyone else has ever gotten such a guanidine hydrazone into the brain, either, and starts to have if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest thoughts.

Now, it's true that we learn some more about the receptor itself by finding new ligands for it, and such compounds can be used for in vitro experiments. But it's not like there aren't other 5-HT6 antagonists out there, in several different chemical classes, and that's just from the first page of a PubMed search. Many of these compounds do, in fact, penetrate the brain, because they were developed by industrial groups for whom in vitro experiments are most definitely not an end in themselves.

I don't mean to single out the Barcelona group here. Their work isn't bad, and it looks perfectly reasonable to me. It's just that my years in industry have made me always ask what a particular paper tells me that I didn't know, and what use might some day be made of the results. Readers here will know that I have a weakness for out-there ideas and technologies, so it's not like I have to see an immediate practical application for everything. But I would like to see the hope of one. And for this work, and for a lot of medicinal chemistry that comes out of academic labs, I just don't see it.

Update: it's been pointed out in the comments that there's a value in academic work that doesn't have to be addressed in industry, that is, training the students who do it. That's absolutely right. But at the same time, couldn't people be trained just as well by working on systems that are a bit less dead on arrival?

And no, I'm not trying to make that case that academic labs should make drugs. If they want to try, then come on down. If they don't, that's fine, too - there's a lot of important research to be done in the world that has no immediate practical application. But this sort of paper that I've written about today seems to miss both of these boats simultaneously: it isn't likely to produce a drug, and it doesn't seem to be addressing any other pressing needs that I can see, either.

And yes, I could say the same about my own PhD work. "The world doesn't need another synthesis of a macrolide antibiotic", I told people