Scientists told to tighten up their act

Delegates at the Australia and New Zealand joint scientific meeting for the Medical Oncology Group of Australia and the Faculty of Radiation Oncology listened to an excellent presentation by Dr Jeff Sloan from the world renowned Mayo Clinic. He gave an overview of genetic studies and their impact on treatment of illness. He presented work which showed that of 40 molecular genetics articles published in leading medical journals, 15 (38%) have failed to meet at least 2 of 7 methodological standards.

He quoted Dr Sidney T Bogardus (JAMA 1999:281:1919-1926) as follows: "Without suitable attention to fundamental methodological standards, the expected benefits of molecular genetics testing may not be achieved."

In the past year, there have been approximately 45,000 articles referenced in PubMed involving genetics. If the methodological standards are as above, potentially 17,000 methodologically flawed genetics papers have been published in the last 12 months.

This echoed the thoughts of other presenters at the conference who had discussed the fact that genetics testing had not lived up to predictions. It should be remembered however, that just because the methodology is flawed, does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily wrong, just that the strength of its scientific validity could then be questioned.

Although many genes have been identified, it may be a case of too many genes and so little time or now we’ve found all these genes what do we do with them?

One explanation for sometimes conflicting results was given by Associate Professor of Pathology Cristin Print, University of Auckland. He suggested that multiple genes by different research groups may just represent snapshots of segments of gene pathways.

Hopefully, this research methodology will mature so that gene predictions will deliver on their initial promise.