Journal Number 89
December 2003

EDITORIAL

Science is Debate
By Ian St George

A number of readers have raised concerns with me about some of the material published in the Journal, particularly some of the contentious taxonomic views expressed by "The Column", but also our use of the proposed new generic names. I want to make some points in response.

First, although the Journal aspires to be a scientific publication, with (soon, we hope) a section
carrying formally peer reviewed papers of original scientific merit, it is also, as many scientific
journals are, a vehicle for news, views, letters to the editor and subjective comment; so, at times,
some material will appear to some readers to be opinionated or one-sided. They are right: it is.
I don't think we need apologise for that, but we do now print a routine disclaimer, stating that
views expressed by authors are not necessarily shared by the editor, the editorial board, nor the membership of the Group.

As I was thinking about this matter, coincidentally enough, the grand old British Medical Journal published a contentious paper suggesting passive smoking may not be as dangerous as had been claimed in the past. The esteemed editor (Richard Smith, an Auckland medical graduate, as it happens) was beaten about the head with a hail of protest from the anti-smoking lobby, and went so far as to devote his entire correspondence section to letters on that single subject.

He then wrote this thoughtful editorial (reproduced here in full):

"I can't respond to all the points raised in this debate, and I thought I would simply share some reflections.

"Firstly, we've considered again whether we should have a blanket policy of refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry. We've twice considered this question in the BMJ and twice decided against. The BMJ is passionately antitobacco, but we are also passionately prodebate and proscience. A ban would be antiscience.

"Secondly, we are not in the 'truth' business. Scientific truths are all provisional. Most of science falls away as new paradigms emerge. This doesn't mean that we are in the 'lies' business, but we are in the 'debate' business. We judged this paper to be a useful contribution to an important debate. We may be wrong, as we are with many papers. That's science.

"Thirdly, with research papers we first ask if we are interested in the question. We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered. It's a hard question, and our methods are inadequate.

"We then peer review the study, but we are well aware of the extreme deficiencies of peer review. Of course the study we published has flaws-all papers do-but it also has considerable strengths: long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies. It's too easy to dismiss studies like this as 'fatally flawed,' with the implication that the study means nothing.

"Fourthly, I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision."

We do not, here at NZNOJ, peer review all our material (we would not wish some of it on reviewers). But in many other respects the issues addressed by old granny BMJ are also our issues. There are few lasting truths, so today's truths should be challenged. The Journal is a proper place for the expression of challenging views, preferably expressed as ideas rather than as established facts, and backed by reasoned argument.

I am also aware of Matthew Arnold's words on what he called the "rural researcher": he occasionally makes a brilliant discovery. But more often, working in isolation from collegial criticism, he strides off one-eyed and alone, following false leads, reaching dead ends, and backing himself into corners.

So we too are pro-debate: we welcome challenging views, and we welcome comment and criticism from readers on material published in the Journal.