Peer review difficult for good reasons
Q. I saw your column on Poly-MVA. I have no knowledge of this product, but I have knowledge of other alternative treatments for a variety of cancers. I have been a certified medical transcriptionist for 30-plus years and have been exposed to many alternative and conventional cancer treatments over these years. I have transcribed and edited papers detailing successes in both conventional Western medicine and alternative treatments. I formerly transcribed and edited numerous publications for the chairmans of both the Department of Nuclear Medicine and the Department of Radiology at the University of New Mexico in the late 1980s. Trust me, I know how this publication process works. What I can tell you is that your contention that this alternative treatment has no merit since it has not been published in any of the peer-reviewed journals is dead wrong. I am certain that another search for papers that were submitted but rejected for publication in peer-review journals (because of biased reviewers) would be an eye opener.
S.H., Jacksonville, Tenn.
A. Peer review examines whether a study has been conducted properly and meets the standards of the journal in which it is to appear. It provides an essential gatekeeper function in science. A study may seem fine to a nonscientist, but it may actually harbor significant defects that confound any ability to properly interpret the results. The peer review, which is typically conducted by independent scientists having expertise in the subject area, examines all aspects of study with a critical eye. Without it, science degenerates into a rumor mill.
This said, science may not be totally objective in every situation. Some have an interest in maintaining the status quo, while others push on behalf of a particular agenda. Some scientifically trained peer reviewers may be more critical of papers with findings that challenge commonly held beliefs - particularly if the beliefs are held by respected scientists in powerful positions.
But this is not unique to science: We find this practice in all areas of life. The beauty of science is that it is a multifaceted process based on the principles of objective inquiry and discovery. For the most part, there is an abiding interest in uncovering new facts, particularly those that can help end human suffering.
Similar to the way a building requires a foundation before upper floors can be added, scientific discovery builds on that which has already been established. Results that are a departure from existing knowledge are met with natural skepticism. This may seem unfair to the proponents of the new ideas, but this is how it must be. Extra care must be taken to do everything right, and the new approaches must also be confirmed by independent researchers at different institutions to eliminate any possibility of error or bias. In the courtroom of scientific opinion, there is a high standard that must be met before radical findings will be embraced. No doubt this slows the adoption of new discoveries, but it serves to weed out those of questionable value in which false hope is the only product.
As aptly stated in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," "at length the truth will out." Scientists want accuracy and reproducibility because that is the stuff that research, careers, reputations, and, even more importantly, future treatment decisions will be based upon.
• Ed Blonz, Ph.D., is a nutrition scientist and the author of "Power Nutrition." Write him at "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Newspaper Enterprise Association, 200 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 or ed@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.