Politics and Scientific Publishing: Noli Me Tangere
Authors: Inder M. Verma
Journal: Molecular Therapy (2002)

One of the principles behind publishing research in scientific journals is to enable other researchers to reproduce the reported findings. This generally requires that reagents, strains, cell lines, other experimental organisms, and so on be made freely available to the scientific community. It is no wonder, therefore, that most scientific journals require that the authors agree to provide access to these tools as a condition of publication. True, this spirit is not always kept to the letter, but repeated requests, or even cajoling by journal editors, usually gets the authors’ attention, provided there are no legal or regulatory hurdles. I was, therefore, shocked to receive a letter recently from Eithan Galun, Director of Goldyne Savad Institute of Gene Therapy at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem and a member of the American Society of Gene Therapy, describing how a Norwegian scientist had allowed her political views to justify refusing Galun's request for a plasmid encoding pig erythropoietin (EPO). The Norwegian researcher wrote, “Due to present situation in the Middle East, I will not deliver any material to an Israelitic [sic] university.” Ironically, the request for porcine EPO was on behalf of a collaborative project between the Hadassah group and a group of Palestinian scientists to benefit Palestinian children suffering from β-thalassemia. The papers by the Norwegian group on the porcine EPO gene were published in two peer-reviewed journals, Domestic Animal Endocrinology and Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, both published by Elsevier Science, who also publishes Molecular Therapy. When the Israeli scientists alerted the publisher to the breach of established scientific practices, Ken Plaxton of Elsevier Science offered only a very tepid response: “We do not have, nor wish to have, any influence on [personal] decisions made by contributors to our journals and can not, I am afraid, in this instance, help you further.” Authors are allowed to hold their own personal political views, but once they have agreed to publish a scientific paper, they are bound to freely disseminate the materials necessary for duplication of their results. Scientists operate in the context of wider society and will continue to be influenced by events that will shape their beliefs and convictions. Science and its practitioners are best advised to refrain from letting those views impede the scientific process. Clearly, science has been used and abused by governments to achieve their aims, but the value of boycotts of scientists in nations in disfavor is a matter of debate. I recall how biologists in many institutions in India suffered from a ban on scientific cooperation following India's nuclear testing. Their only fault was that their departments were associated with institutions that were in some way linked to nuclear testing. What is not a matter of debate are the established practices and principles of scientific publication. Molecular Therapy will continue to stand firmly on its insistence that authors have an obligation to share reagents, cell lines, vectors, transgenic animals, and so on with other researchers according to the requirements of institutional consent forms, material transfer agreements, etc. I wholeheartedly agree with Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science, when he stated “perhaps there are plausible excuses for failure to comply with the sharing requirement, like ‘We ran out,’ or ‘The dog ate my culture.’ But ‘We don't like your government’ just won't do.”