Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Criticism preserves the vitality of science

Nature Biotechnology volume 20, page 867 (2002)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

The vulnerability of science has been highlighted by the unfolding controversy over a paper published in Nature on transgenic introgression into Mexican maize1. The scientific enterprise is labor intensive, and unforgiving of carelessness. In practicing science, we must contend with the difficulty of abandoning a favorite hypothesis when data do not support it. We also have to shield objective investigation from political, financial, and ideological diversion or risk trying to prove something that is less than true. External agendas can also detract from science, with manifestations ranging from manipulation of scientific debate for political ends, to wanton destructive actions. Concerns about the impingement of financial influences on research have presumably motivated recent editorial policy revisions by journals such as Nature and Nature Biotechnology requiring authors to disclose competing financial interests.

To overcome these challenges, we require both the support and scrutiny of our colleagues. For scrutiny, peer review is often heralded as the gold standard. Non-experts in a field often rely on the filter provided by peer review to screen for quality and originality of research. To ensure the integrity of this process, reviewers must be expert in the experiments from which data are drawn and not be predisposed to concur with (or disfavor) the conclusions in question. Reviewers must be expert and unbiased enough to rigorously assess not only whether authors made relevant use of scientific reagents, but also whether they have dutifully employed the scientific method, produced information of importance to a field of inquiry, and adequately addressed current knowledge in the field. Many influences can press for a lowering (or raising beyond reach) of the bar in the stringency of peer review for particular studies, including socioeconomic concerns, the lure of prominence in the popular media, and political agendas. But to compromise this standard weakens the fabric of science as a self-correcting, knowledge-building process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Quist, D. & Chapela, I.H. Nature 414, 541–543 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Christou, P. Transgenic Res. 11, iii–v (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Metz, M. & Fütterer, J. Nature 416, 600–601 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaplinsky, N. et al. Nature 416, 601–602 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Life Sciences Network. Mexico maize scandal hots up. http://www.lifesciencesnetwork.com/news-detail.asp?newsID=676.

  6. Food First Institute for Food and Development Policy. Joint statement on the Mexican GM maize scandal. http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/ge/jointstatement2002.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Microbiology, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, WA

    Matthew Metz

Authors
  1. Matthew Metz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Metz, M. Criticism preserves the vitality of science. Nat Biotechnol 20, 867 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0902-867

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0902-867

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing