Science controversy authors fight on
12 August 2010
Researchers asked to retract a Science paper1 describing a tool for analysing metabolic networks have vowed to validate their much-criticised work. 'We are going to demonstrate that the chemistry of the paper was correct,' Manuel Ferrer of the Spanish National Research Council's (CSIC) Institute of Catalysis told Chemistry World. That's despite his employers recommending the paper's withdrawal, a move which Science itself followed with a similar request last week.
Together with Peter Golyshin of Bangor University, UK, Ferrer led the team that described a 'reactome array' last October. The array included 1676 molecules meant to represent central metabolic pathways in all forms of life attached to glass slides and fluorescent dyes. 'Upon enzyme action in a biological sample the quenched fluorescent compound is liberated, providing a fluorescence signal for detection purposes,' Ferrer explains. Therefore, when extracts from a cell are added to the array, the fluorescence indicates what pathways the cell uses in its metabolism.
Taking a close look at the chemistry
Ferrer blames the problems on the large mixture of chemical and biological data that the approach produced, suggesting that his team focused too closely on the biological aspects and potential applications. 'We made mistakes,' he concedes. 'I missed the chemical part, and we didn't incorporate all of the necessary information.' However, since December, arrays have been successfully tested six times by scientists inside and outside of the group, including Nobel prize winner Richard Roberts, who is currently chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs in the US. 'The experiments show that the technology works fine,' Ferrer claims. His and Golyshin's team will postpone the decision on whether to retract the paper until the beginning of September, their next opportunity to meet.
Interesting? Spread the word using the 'tools' menu on the left.
1. A Beloqui et al, Science, 2009, 326, 252-257 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1174094)
2. B Alberts, Science, 2009, 326 (DOI: 10.1126/science.1186078)
Also of interest
07 January 2010
Scientists accuse the journal Science of failings in its peer review system as claims in a recent paper prompt harsh criticism from chemists
09 September 2009
International survey of reviewers reiterates concerns over demand, quality control and detecting plagiarism in peer review
Comment on this story at the Chemistry World blog
Read other posts and join in the discussion
External links will open in a new browser window