In which I lament due process in science

In science, we have a very simple process for taking data from the laboratory to becoming a “result” in the public domain. The work is written up in the form of a manuscript for a scientific journal, submitted to said journal and the editor thereof will send the manuscript out to 2-10 peer reviewers (other scientists in the field) who criticise it, evaluate it, decide if it can be published (a) at all or (b) as-is with no changes [very rare!] or (c) with minor modifications [pretty common] or (d) with major modifications. Until a discovery has been through peer-review and published in a journal, it is not a valid discovery as it lacks any independent validation. Twice in the last month have “discoveries” been released to the press without any publication in a scientific journal. This is major jumping of the gun and very misleading - what if there is a major flaw in the study that renders it invalid? Will the authors retract the press release? No - they’ll just quietly move on to other things. Nothing should be released to the press without due process taking place and I do not understand why scientists see fit to jump the gun - many journals even embargo press releases prior to publication and for a very good reason!

The latest piece of unpublished data released to the press concerns bacteriology and “new bacterial life”. This makes out that some amazing new form of life has been found…what the authors have actually found is a microbe from a novel genus (assuming their data are valid and pass review, of course). To put this into context, in 2012 the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology published over 137 genera novae (new genera)* - just shy of 3 per week. That does not include genera novae published in other journals and then put into the IJSEM’s Validation List system. So, 3 novel genera within the Bacteria per week. In 2012, how many of these warranted an article on the BBC website? Zero**. Not one. The last article on bacterial taxonomy on the BBC website was in 2010 and concerned a species nova (new species) within the genus Halomonas and had been published in a peer reviewed journal prior to the press release.

My point? 

1. This is not a major discovery by any means - yes it’s interesting but genera novae are almost 3-per-week - really not a groundbreaking discovery in that alone. Yes, it’s from a fascinating location and the evolution will no doubt be fascinating but just the novel organism alone is nothing interesting really.

2. It has not been peer reviewed or independently verified by deposit into two international culture collections in accordance with the Bacteriological Code. It is worth noting that a large number of DNA sequences can be found in the GenBank database regarding an apparent species nova that is then never published - presumably stumbling at the Collection or peer-review stage.

Press-releases should not be issued prior to peer-review and should not go out on mundane aspects of a discovery just to get there first - wait for the whole story to be clear and release THAT - it’s bound to have more impact.

* Using the search string “gen. nov.” as an exact phrase from Jan 2012 - Dec 2012 on the IJSEM website.

** Using the search strings “novel bacteria” and “new species bacteria” and “new genus bacteria” over all time on the BBC website.