A press conference was held yesterday at the genetics congress regarding the heated discussion on stem cells in Germany. One remarkable note was a complaint of the German stem cell researcher Hans Schöler from the MPI for Cell and Developmental Biology on the reports of breakthroughs in the German press. Results had not appeared in peer reviewed journal yet and were presented “to scientists only” but were picked up by a major newspaper, the FAZ whose science section is considered highly even in the science community. The article also included doubts (“practically artifacts”) about the results of other researchers by Schöler himself, who now claims to be quoted out of context. The scientists, whose results were criticized, responded acridly in another newspaper .
The case has not been picked up by non-German media but check the Ärzteblatt for a reasonable report, SpOn has more extensive but somewhat tendentious coverage. This case is complicated and I am not sure what to make of it. But the mass media are not the very best way to discuss scientific results and I am afraid that cases like this will rather mute open scientific discussions.
Roland, I only learned today about the details of this story. Apparently Schöler didn’t finish his talk at the genetics conference because of the FAZ story. This touches on some important issues for science bloggers. Should we report about everything we learn at a conference, or should there be press embargos for those conferences (or sessions) that talk about unpublished results? I usuallly find it rather boring to listen to a talk where all the data have already been published. But I understand that there are many reasons not to talk about something unpublished.
Yep, that’s largely the reason for bringing it up. We had the discussion several times at the ISMB amongst the usual science bloggers. However, what’s really gone off the deep end with this story is the usage of the quote that describes the work of colleagues/competitors as “practically artifacts”. I can imagine someone saying this over lunch easily – I suspect we have all done that and regreted it 15 minutes later.
I cannot fathom whether Schöler actually made this or a similar statement but even if he had agreed to use it, putting it verbatim in a scientific newspaper article is not how this should go. Interviews are typically send between the two parties and with such statements, fairly out of context, is this really good journalistic practice?
So remember: You can click “I like” on a FriendFeed item with out giving it too much thought. If you criticize other peoples work, bring good arguments and plain language and sleep about it, independently of whether this happens over a lunch table, a forum or a journal correspondence.