Editorial
The Climbing Syndrome (Anthills)
I
t's an old human tendency and, recently, a common practice in political races. Johnny sees Sandra as a rival, preventing his talents from being recognized. So Johnny promotes himself by commenting positively about his own abilities and making derogatory remarks about Sandra. It doesn't matter whether his remarks are based on honest logic, sound fact, or anything else; his objective is to climb to the top of the anthill. In politics, I think most Americans (and others in democratic countries in which uninhibited political races reign) are accustomed to "mud slinging" among opponents and endure it as a price of free elections. Where mud slinging has no place—no place at all—is in descriptions of scientific progress. I am writing this Editorial to protest what I perceive as an increasing tendency among researchers, in both research papers and proposals, to "pull down your rivals by dishonest or irrelevant criticism" and thus promote the stature of your own work. By rivals, I don't mean people as much as areas of study; personal criticisms are rare. I have seen such criticism in peer reviews of papers submitted to this Journal, in reviews of my papers submitted to other journals, and in research proposals submitted to federal agencies. Personal criticisms in the latter are the most insidious because the consequences may be the unjust "extermination of the opposition". I have such rfmps in
the past but I feel the incidence is qualitatively higher now Let me provide a couple of illustrative examples. A research paper that I read recently presented a new chemical sensor. In the introduction, the author trashed other types of sensors aimed at the same task by pointing out trivial deficiencies or problems in their
use for this or that special purpose. Another example that I recently read was a proposal to create a new set of catalysts, based on what I thought was really clever and innovative chemistry and entirely worthy of federal support. Unfortunately, the proposer, to enhance the prospects of funding, also decried the abilities of previous researchers to design useful catalysts. I was not among those criticized, but I know enough about that area to appreciate the enormously sophisticated work that was disregarded and misrepresented by the proposer. I feel that such tactics are wrong and approach unethical behavior. Certainly there is a large "gray" area with regard to opinions as to "what is new", and I don't want to overstate my concern. However, I have always believed that good analytical chemistry sells itself without a need for tearing down earlier research. The previous literature should be reviewed dispassionately and not with malice aforethought. I encourage writers of analytical chemistry papers and proposals to take a positive outlook of their field. I also strongly encourage future reviewers who read this Editorial and believe that an attempt to rewrite history is being made in a paper or proposal to say so in straightforward words. Honest referencing and acknowledgment of prior research is not a matter of politics; it is a basic characteristic of scientific progress, and federal science officers and editors have a responsibility to regard it as such.
Analytical Chemistry News & Features, April 1, 1999 227 A
