New Rules of Publication: Changing Mores
Authors: Inder M. Verma
Journal: Molecular Therapy (2001)

“If you want to publish your data, you should make all the materials, mice, and reagents available”—this has been the governing principle of most scientific journals, including Molecular Therapy. This policy has generally served science well, though there have been occasional lapses, complaints, deliberate delays, dreaded material transfer agreements (MTAs), obdurate “technology transfer types,” and incredible obfuscation by the legal folk. But the system functions, by and large, even though it can be annoying to learn of the final publication of one's paper by the e-mail requests for various plasmids, vectors, genes, or mice that one may have used. My favorite was an e-mail demand for 14 plasmids, followed 48 hours later by a fax, and a day later by phone calls, although the demand was eventually softened to a request through the provision of a Federal Express account number. However, all this may change following the publication of the complete human genome sequence by Celera Genome Sciences in Science in mid-February. Of particular note is the fact that you can access only portions of the raw sequence (probably unannotated), but presumably it is entirely available to well-paying customers through business arrangements. Imagine a comparable situation relevant to gene therapy: Someone publishes a new vector delivery system, but will allow access to only a portion of the vector at a time. We would almost certainly protest vehemently and probably would not publish it. The authors will argue that they have spent millions of dollars to make this “marvelous new vector” and do not wish to release it, even if one is willing to sign a draconian MTA. The scientific community will argue that if you want to receive academic kudos for publication, then you must make it available. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! But let's examine the other side. Because the authors are forced to release the vector upon publication, they may choose not to publish at all. Who loses—author, science, or society? True, if most scientists do not have access to the delivery vector, the publication is practically useless. On the other hand, if it is published even in skeleton form, we at least get to know the basic principles or even the nature or perhaps the type of virus or formulation used to make the delivery system. Perhaps some scientists will be able to establish collaborations or other arrangements, allowing them access to the vector or the technology. The fact is that a good deal of science is currently being carried out in commercial settings, and therefore new rules may be needed to accommodate the balance between profits and progress. I would like to be an idealist, but I am afraid I must be prudent and pragmatic. I know the Science publication of the Celera human genome sequence required long and arduous negotiations (which led the publicly funded human genome consortium to seek publication in another journal). I do agree with the decision made by Science, but I am afraid this is the edge of a slippery slope. What will we do if Molecular Therapy authors provide copious confidential information on proprietary delivery systems for review purposes, but provide only minimal details in the published version? What if the details are available only if you subscribe to a paid Web site? Should we decline publication of such manuscripts, or possibly make arrangements with the authors to release information in say six months, one year, etc.? I predict most of us have the expected gut reaction, i.e., “no way should such a paper be published.” After all, the first and foremost reason to publish full details in an article is to allow replication of the observation. In addition, full publication can allow further improvements and perhaps avoid unnecessary expenditures associated with “reinventing the wheel.” Nevertheless, the reality is that we have to find creative ways to accommodate academic inquisitors with commercial interests, otherwise the losers will be society and, by extension, science, as public trust in science will erode further. Thus, we seek your advice, comments, and ideas to find an acceptable and workable solution.