At the end of the last century, when I was getting my visa and saying goodbye to my friends of the time – going to America to complete my post-graduate studies – a thought cemented itself in my plans: Create a scientific journal where only negative results are published.
Negative -Editorial project name in English- can obtain, review and publish experiments that demonstrate the invalidity of a theory, the failure of a hypothesis, the lack of involvement of a molecule in a mechanism that explains a disease or dysfunction. A technique for a specific application. In other words, it echoes the everyday life of scientists.
My enthusiasm led me to financially involve non-science friends, who logically saw that there should be an editorial space for those experiments that didn’t make ridiculous headlines in public newspapers. However, when I took my idea to several colleagues in the industry, their long faces made me skeptical. Negative.
Each served a different purpose, but they all converged on one thing: No one wants their name associated with a negative outcome.
When I came to America, the whirlwind of experiments, new city, different laboratory and so on made me forget that plan, and a lot of scientists didn’t think it was convenient for me. Start by myself.
Lately, in his regular writings, Scientist and Popularizer Louis Mandoliu It focused on the path we usually follow when conducting scientific research. A journey full of bumps and setbacks, more often than one might think. The original idea did not have the expected effect. In his case, he talks about the potential use of popular molecular technology in a project related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which ultimately turned out not to be possible.
Personally, I could fill a few pages with those experiments that were interrupted by negative results, understanding this when the initial approach was not as crystalline as expected. In fact, I’ve always thought and said that scientists are mostly failures and therefore the people best adapted to living with frustration.
But back to the main topic: Non-disclosure of negative results.
Consider the following: A laboratory in Boston is attempting to demonstrate an explanation of this phenomenon A The factor is due to appearance B. Preliminary data suggest that this, and nothing else, is the answer. However, after many trials, months – not to mention years – of investing money and human resources, it was decided. B It has nothing to do with the event A.
What happens to this data generated in Boston?
Logic would lead us to think that they should be published so that the scientific community is not involved B Inside A And, in this simple way, those who work at the same value stop their projects and look for other alternatives.
What is reality?
Often, a laboratory in Madrid is determined to demonstrate a “significant” role by the factor. B In event generation A. Let’s remember that many early data led the Bostonians to follow that path, and so did the people of Madrid. The Spanish lab may have fewer resources and more bureaucratic hurdles to develop the program This leads to spending more time on more productive company.
Fortunately, a member of the Spanish team befriends one of the Boston team and learns of the debacle over coffee at a congress. In this way, research in Madrid could be redirected and cooperation between the two teams could be established.
Eventually, one of the two labs — ideally, both together — will publish it C Y D Factors that trigger the event A. A few supporting statistics—not on the front page of a scientific article—show that. B It is not related A In this way the original regression comes to light, but this is not always the case.
Although it is hard to believe, This is very common in scientific research; Something that makes us waste time and resources.
Why not publish negative results?
The first stumbling block lies in scientific journals, all of which love headlines that lead to thinking about solutions and the future. A negative result is rarely a “sell.” In any special issue. Granted, there are specific examples, but generally sweet with positive alternatives.
As scientists we want to appear in high-impact journals, and we want these to retain their luster, so we push scientists to publish them. In other words, journals are looking for impressive articles that will be highly cited, and we as scientists play along, producing those impressive articles with positive and reproducible results. After all, it is true that a negative result is valuable, but it is not cited.
For example, one article states: “We have achieved an extraordinary performance in purifying the factor. X Using the technique Z”. The article in question will then be highly cited by everyone using the technique Z Do the same factor refinement X. Instead, the article focuses on what it says are “techniques.” L, H, I, J Y K They do not work to cleanse the factor X”, will not be cited. Of course, the scientific community will take note and look for another technique to refine X; A very useful one.
On the other hand, as I mentioned at the beginning, A scientist has his own ego You don’t want to be remembered for a decision that contradicts your own hypothesis. We are human, don’t forget!
What would be the solution?
Of course, I’m not talking about the discussion forums where the recaps are posted, and the daily adventures are discussed, the solid articles I find. A failure of science. It can bring us closer to success by looking for other ways. Above all, Negative That’s still a good idea.
