New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker Q1 Do you feel that stem cell research is put under more intense scrutiny (for example, from journalists, journal reviewers or other scientists) than other areas of biomedical science?
Answer
Percentage
Number of responses
Yes
55.9%
62
No
44.1%
49
If yes, please specify why you think this is Answered question Skipped question
111 1
#
If yes, please specify why you think this is
1
I think the word "stem cell" is a bit overused and there is a hype associated with it as I guess stem cell research offers hope to many individual
2
Highly variable nature of embryonic stem cell work
3
This area has greater potential broad impact on the medical field than many. It's nature and difficulty to understand likely seems "scary" to much of the public. Because of this it deserves scrutiny, but also accuracy in reporting. The research is important BECAUSE we need a much better understanding of the science before moving into any clinical application.
4
because of the great potential it offers there is significant interest, but also there are people who disagree with the technology and so are keen to see it fail
5
There is too much public misinformation about stem cells and so research is subject to extra, undue scrutiny.
6
Because the implications for therapeutics are greater.
7
The public perception of regenerative medicine has been blown out of proportion and so big results are expected long before they can realistically be achieved.
8
I think there is an element of 'moral' and 'religious' interpretation of stem cell based research because of the fundamental potential of pluripotent stem cells to form multiple tissue and organ types. However, I also feel that this both positively and negatively 'colors' the field of stem cell research for 2 reasons. 1: it taints adult stem cell research which has been studied for decades, particularly in the blood cell research field. 2: the moral and ethical barriers automatically assume that stem cell researchers are out on frankenstein-like research goals while in reality, there is more emphasis and realistic goals of achieving simple cell-based therapies based on what we already know about the human body.
9
Only because it has much public interest in its potential in healthcare.
10
Because it's the 'new thing', so it sometimes seems the that vaguest bit of research can be flagged up out of all proportion
11
This is a misunderstanding by journalists between ES cells, iPS cells and adult stem cells that adds to the scrutiny.
12
Because it is still a very new field, it is well promoted by societies, the concept and implication of stem cell research for biomedical application is relatively easily placeable for the broader public (e.g., cell replacement therapy, drug screening, etc.)
13
I think many non-scientists are wary of the term "stem cells" and do not know exactly what it implies; for that reason, I think journalist and other scientists are very careful with their terminology and cautious about what they present to avoid controversy as well as not stir up false hopes.
14
As it is a rather new, highly dynamic and highly competitive field, some issues still need better understanding. In this respect, inconsistencies between different labs occur very often, therefore I believe there is more intense scrutiny.
15
Not rigorous scrutiny - too much hype, Big highly competitive labs desperate to publish next big breakthrough (few hold water), and journalists with 5 minute attention/memory spans.
16
1. The term "stem cells" covering the entire field is conflated with controversy over destruction of embryos to obtain ES cells. 2. Overinflated near term expectations for the field, together with abuse of stem cell tourism and un-scientific offerings of unproven treatments. 3. The actual future potential of the field to yield new regenerative medicine treatments. >
1 | NewScientist
#
If yes, please specify why you think this is
17
Translational aspects of the concepts are pretty simple to comprehend, so it makes a good story for the press that is overly optimistic - and the lay public can understand and get excited about it. Politicians who know little about the science also show interest and decide funding priorities to favor this news-generating work. But it is not emphasized that without basic science to decipher core mechanisms, clinical progress will be limited.
18
The field has significant promise, and there is great hope that the cells will be useful for the study of disease and for therapy. So big stories receive attention.
19
concern regarding fraud, reproducibility of data
20
Stem cell research is broad
21
People hope that stem cell research will lead to cures for a wide variety of diseases.
22
importance, implications for serious currently incurable diseases
23
there has been a big hype in the field as a whole, then a little bit less attention, then a renewed scrutiny now that cell therapies are supposedly within a decade or so. I still have my doubts on whether this is true.
24
potential (mostly imagined) danges
25
Young field working through what is real
26
Based on the publicity and comments that I see in the newspaper and magazines, I believe this to be a true statement. Moreover, it is often politicised, which causes additional publicity and scrutiny.
27
Partly due to ethical concerns, partly due to the novel potential for medical treatments.
28
A bit too much hype initially; higher than average number of retractions and data fabrication incidents
29
Regulatory path is more demanding, processes are less well establilshed
30
Journalists, in particular, have hyped the stem cell field and expectations beyond the ability of scientists to do solid work. Because of journalists, the public expects cures now, and that is just not the case. Because of this hype, patients migrate to unregulated countries to receive unverified "stem cell therapy" and this is just plain bad.
31
NO MOST OF THE PUBLISHED STUFF IS NON REPRODUCIBLE CRAP
32
In particular embryonic stem cell research. But adult stem cells and cancer stem cells follow.
33
We have hyped the potential
34
SCRO Access to the research building is limited.
35
Topical
36
All experiments are being repeated by many labs. In many ways this should eventually lead to increased quality of research.
37
The public thinks stem cells are the answer to everything.
38
Stem cell research gets more exposure not necessarily more scrutiny.
39
Much of the public has heard the term "stem cell" but doesn't necessarily knows what it means. Unfortunately, the media has been sensationalizing the science behind stem cells even though it is not that different from other areas of biomedical research.
40
Because of the potential therapeutic utility of stem cells for regenerative medicine.
41
There's so much promise with the outcomes of stem cell research that it makes people both eager to hear of the findings but also keen to ensure they are valid.
42
Marginally yes - largely because of the hope - and hype - associated with the potentials of this area - and the the disconnect between the excitement that applications are possible and the time that will be required to develop robust safe reliable applications
43
Politics as well as clinical need.
NewScientist | 2
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker Q2 If you answered yes to the previous question, do you feel that this affects your work in any way? Answer
Percentage
Number of responses
Yes, it does affect my work
24.4%
21
No, it doesn't affect my work
75.6%
65
If yes, please specify how
19 Answered question
86
Skipped question
26
#
If yes, please specify how
1
This affects the work when the reporting is made to be sensational. Because the area is evolving with respect to our knowledge, often times reporting is inaccurat or, by omission, misleading. A prime example is the prior ban on human stem cell research.
2
There is so much interest in the field that sometimes even the smallest advances feel like they are over hyped which means that exceptions for rapid progress are extreme and often unobtainable
3
Yes and no. My research depends on funding which is influenced by other researchers in the field who share similar opinions about the importance of stem cell research, but since they are competitors, other issues impact whether I receive funding or not. The public opinion about stem cell research does not directly influence my research.
4
Publishing scientifically sound , if unspectacular, work is very difficult.
5
Much increased regulatory filing for work with even such non-controversial cells as induced pluripotent stem cells derived from somatic cells.
6
(1) It changes the core dynamics for funding by tipping the balance from fundamental research to examining regenerative therapeutics through transplantation. This is not sustainable, and leads to quick loss of hope for success (it needs to be understood that there are no true stem cell therapies in clinical trials, the only initiated by regeneron has been suspended). (2) Politicians want to fund translational research that will make the news, so most funding for stem cells are received by medical schools and little is provided to basic science departments. Most of these studies waste taxpayer money with no meaningful progress.
7
Stem cells are not the center of my research
8
More stringent demonstrations needed
9
I want to be absolutely sure that anything I might publish is correct, not overstated and reproducible by others because it is such a highly visible field
10
less funding / enthusiasm
11
I tell my lab members that everything they do is going to be under scrutiny...so it doesn't matter if we believe it, it matters if the data convince thousands of people. So we do more controls, and are more careful, than ever.
12
Although I have obtained appropriate approvals, reviewers are not always knowledgeable about how stem cell research differs from human subjects research.
13
Increases costs of developing products
14
This is a lot of pressure on legitimate scientists in the field to hold the line and try to stave off the charlatans. Right now, those of us that are legit and trying to do the right thing are fighting a loosing battle. This has a major impact on my work in that I am forced to try and translate my work into clinical applications before things are ready for prime time. And I spend a tremendous amount of time reviewing manuscripts to be sure that they are sound, and to try and stem the tide.
15
WE TRY TO DO THINGS MORE THAN ONCE
16
My work is observed more closely.
17
I'm more involved in public education that I would have been.
18
More time pressure
19
I've been active in policy, with the press, and the public. Would not have been so otherwise.
3 | NewScientist
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker Q3 Have you ever felt any pressure to submit a paper for publication that you felt was incomplete or contained unverified information? Answer
Percentage
Number of responses
Yes
16.7%
18
No
83.3%
90
If yes, please specify the circumstances Answered question Skipped question
14 108 4
#
If yes, please specify the circumstances
1
Large, expensive government-funded projects are sometimes under great pressure to publish work that would often be better suited to greater scrutiny before submission. Similarly, grant and career deadlines often generate pressure to publish--or perish.
2
A story is never really finished...we just make a little progress a ta atime.
3
There are always something need to do.
4
Due to the multi-group papers that are now common, you can only feel confident about your specific contribution and hope other are as well.
5
Every submission has strengths and weakness and could always contain more data. However, there is a tremendous pressure to publish, in order to receive funding for one's research. Shortcuts are, therefore, not unusual. On the same token, science/research relies on checks and balances. Unfortunately, the review process of articles and grants has become a playground of promoting personal opinions, rather than evaluating the actual science. Thus, there is a not negligible amount of subjectivity in the review process. These issues have major contributions on the publication process at large.
6
When we know competitors are going to publish the same story.
7
Yes, but we did not submit it. But the two papers published by two other labs in our area of work cannot be reproduced in our lab. This was because of pressure to publish on their part. Now, the burden of proof is high and the field has already been led astray.
8
I feel it always because you can not predict what reviewers will say
9
Career structures now dictate certain number of years since Phd as eligibility criteria. You have choice to rush things out or miss critical career fellowships.
10
I have felt the pressure, but I have always tried to complete a study and publish only verified reproducible results
11
There is always pressure to publish and it is up to the scientist to uphold rigorous standards.
12
tenure review
13
Pressure from post-doctoral trainees to publish or perish
14
The problem is that we are at a competitive disadvantage because data are published in high profile journals that are clearly inadequate
NewScientist | 4
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker
Q4 Have you ever felt any pressure from your peers or superiors to falsify or augment data or do anything you consider unethical? Answer
Percentage
Yes
2.8%
3
No
97.2%
103
If yes, please specify the circumstances Answered question Skipped question
Number of responses
5 106 6
#
If yes, please specify the circumstances
1
But sometimes I think we are a little generous with our interpretation of the results. And the fact that irreproducible data gets bracketed as 'heterogeneity in the starting population'. ahem.
2
Supervisors and mentors get very excited about data, but some people then become scared to tell them it could not be validated later. The pressure comes from the supervisors, not the researchers.
3
Co-authors did not have adequate knowledge of basic medical statistics. So results would at first look more promising due to inadequate handling of data.
4
We would rather not publish. But we have discussed manuscripts in which this could have been the case. But hey, there is no science court to set these peer-reviewed materials straight.
5
Sometimes one's job is called into question, and superiors have been known to try and force pre-mature publication and/or take credit for findings. It is always hazardous to bow to this sort of pressure. The intervention by superiors can/should be considered unethical, particularly when they do not even know the contents of the work or only partially understand the subject.
5 | NewScientist
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker
Q5 Have you or any of your colleagues ever falsified or augmented data that has ended up in a published paper? Answer
Percentage
Yes
4.7%
5
No
95.3%
101
If yes, please specify the circumstances Answered question Skipped question
Number of responses
6 106 6
#
If yes, please specify the circumstances
1
I can't speak for my colleagues, but I do know that premature publications happen all the time due to pressure to get novel and/or mechanistic information needlessly. One recent report on iPSCs was recently retracted.
2
In my experience, no one has actually made up data, but people have definitely used specific data that fits their hypothesis, while ignoring non-validating data.
3
But I know cases where they deliberately ignored inconvenient data in order to support their likely erroneous conclusions. (happens often)
4
I have not, but I certainly know of numerous instances where fellows with, at times, the knowledge of their mentors who have published falsified data.
5
ANYONE WOULD BE REALLY STUPID TO ANSWER YES!
6
I removed my name, but the paper was published
NewScientist | 6
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker
Q6 Please indicate your level of experience Answer options
Percentage
Number of responses
Undergraduate
0.0%
0
Masters student
0.0%
0
PhD student
9.5%
9
Post-doc (less than one year)
0.0%
0
Post-doc (1 to 3 years)
5.3%
5
Post-doc (3-7 years)
6.3%
6
Post-doc (7+ years)
3.2%
3
Assistant professor
32.6%
31
Professor
43.2%
41
Other (please specify)
8 Answered question
95
Skipped question
17
Q7 Please indicate what country your institution is in
7 | NewScientist
Country
Number of responses
US
53
UK
21
Germany
5
Italy
1
Denmark
1
Australia
1
US/Hong Kong
1
Answered question
84
Skipped question
28
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker Q8 Is there anything else you would like to say about the issues covered in this survey? Answered question
36
Skipped question
76
Is there anything else you would like to say about the issues covered in this survey?
# 1
Glad you are talking about research conduct and ethics. There should more open discussions on that topic.
2
no
3
We publish all of our data and the software used to analyze it so that we help assure all of our research is reproducible.
4
Provably not deep or close enough to uncover much...
5
no
6
It implies stem cell research is under different pressure than other areas of research. In my experience corruption in science is low and stem cell research is no different
7
I think the falsification/augmentation issues are in no way restricted to the stem cell field.
8
Nobody will answer honestly….
9
The broad field of stem cell research is very competitive, and the need for some of the therapies it hopes to impact is high, but in general I think that pushes people to be more rigorous/ more careful rather than the converse.
10
I am very ennoyed by recent events in stem cell research publications
11
Refereeing in top journals is poor. Often asking for over-elaborate, costly and time consuming experiments rather than ensuring basic core finding is sound.
12
Can't imagine people acknowledging falsification of data
13
No
14
Not very specific to stem cell research!
15
For human embryonic stem cell work, paperwork and oversight is excessive and prevents labs from entering this area of research.
16
As opposed to mechanistic studies, work on the outcomes of cells can be poorly quantified and subjective. This causes issues for reviewers.
17
The vast majority of stem cell researchers are hard working and honest. Unfortunately, the promise of the field has bee over-sold. There are unlikely to be many short-term benefits.
18
no
19
The vast majority of work published in the stem cell area and in fact in all areas of science is accurate. Just because there is an occasional controversy like the current STAP stem cell controversy we must be careful not to damn the entire field and throw the baby out with the bath water.
20
Scientists should grow out of the blackmail of publications and papers should be changed more as papers than as belonging to a specific journal. This is partly happening already anyway with a shift of interest towards open source.
21
stem cell research is the most promising work I have ever done!
22
The field is characterised by a very unhealthy competitive attitude between the labs that is nourished by some of the top tier journals. Senior Stem Cell Researchers have responded to this by refusing to submit
23
Clearly in light of the STAP story, there will be increased scrutiny. The issue relates more to journal status and the pressures/rewards that result rather than any specific field.
24
Yes, there are many PIs who also use the press for their own devices. I consider this to often cross the line. The best light is put on data, even when it is not routinely achievable. The marketing done by these PIs is often to get more money, in todays very competitive environment, and often those with the most money also control aspects of publications and research efforts. The system is not perfect, but often the most vocal get big headlines and funding, even when their results can not be fully re-produced, and it is the scientists who really try to publish high quality, well controlled papers who often do not get the highest impact papers or adequate funding. The press and hierarchical nature of academia promote this bad behaviour.
25
No >
NewScientist | 8
New Scientist survey: The stem cell research pressure cooker
Is there anything else you would like to say about the issues covered in this survey?
# 26
Pressures and pitfalls? The answer is No! Historically, a hot and competive field has more chance growing scientific fraud, falsification and cheat, it is not real related to pressure and pitfalls! it is not just in stem cell research, Sadly, it is a nature of human kind. Remember years ago, someone painted a mouse skin colour faking as transgenic mouse for publication.
27
Criticism is as faddish as science itself
28
SINCE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE STEM CELLS USEFUL INVOLVE TISSUE CULTURE, WHICH IS EXTREMELY MUTAGENIC, IT WILL BE A LONG TIME BEFORE AYTHING WILL BE IN THE CLINIC WITHOUT KILLING PEOPLE
29
The field of stem cell biology is in a mess. Partially because of journalists, partially because of leadership that is pushing for translation, and largely because of commercial interests who are pushing for commercialization of "stem cell" products before providing proof of efficacy.
30
Success in science is truly the luck of the draw - are you lucky enough to have a good idea in a good environment where good people can give you good advice on testing that good idea and proving it true. That is science, and that needs to be better addressed by the entire scientific community - there's a reason people are bitter... what type of people, then, does science gather?
31
No
32
The pressure in stem cell research is immense and the observed quality of research is questionable. I think that there is a lot to change especially from the editors perspective. They should prevent the field from going into endless studies of in Vitro artefacts.
33
Pressure to publish may foster other forms of unethical behaviour
34
I do vry basic reseach with stem cells and have to constantly resist pressure from funding agencies to be more translational. I believe it is a bit premature and the urgency to understand these cells better berore dumping them in patients has never been greater.
35
The high profile journal review process favors the sensational over the well done and reliable
36
I feel that biomedical scientists in any field of studies, not necessarily stem cell research, are under pressure due to competition (or survival).
9 | NewScientist
