759 _N_AT_u_R_E_v_oL_._33_5 _21_o_cr_o_s_E_R_19_~8-----NEWS AND VI EWS--------------_ Benveniste on the Benveniste affair Dr Jacques Benveniste replies to some of the points raised in recent correspondence in a text which is printed ( as on a previous occasion) unchanged except for grammatical reasons. Paris that remain unchallenged. I am supposed rial standards" for extraordinary data from WHAT a deluge! Certainly appropriate not to have ever seen anything such as Fig. H . Metzger. J. Randi believes that it takes about a paper on water but a lot of it could 2 before, when the same is in Table 1 and special data to tell a unicorn from a goat. have been deleted using Nature's criteria Fig. lb of our paper. The two plots in Fig. In the experimental process, data must be for publication. Our publication of our 6 are declared discordant, exactly what is collected and interpreted independently paper was a cry for help to explain these printed in our article. of the weight and implication of the hypo­ puzzling results. Instead we got a fraud The following correspondence for weeks thesis. A goat is a unicorn when a statis­ squad, an unsound (a fraud implicating occupied precious Nature space to show tically significant number of experiments five laboratories?) insult to respected both that these data do not exist and how have shown a unique horn, obviously after scientists, who from the start and there­ to explain them. I am more concerned at Randi has checked that it was not glued after were treated as criminals. All scien­ Gaylarde's claim that they are synthetic with Araldite. If there are two horns, it's a tists on Earth should resent the insult or at (334, 375), which is entirely unsubstanti­ goat, regardless of electron microscopy, least the threat. ated as well as being a blow to academic NMR imaging or gene splicing. The style of the report, some of the courtesy. This is serious matter. Changing the expressions used, the sensational titles - It is clear from the Table I legend of our rules of experimental science will first kill indeed, it's a shame. A well-done job, paper that dilutions were double-coded fragile data critical to fringe advances and admittedly, that condemns us first, then but not the reading. Thb could explain an then science as a whole. Let us not depart covers pages that discouraged many unconscious gap-closing between tripli­ from this "fundamental principle of scien­ readers. And, shamelessly, a critical cates but not the differences between tific objectivity". Finally, some good sentence indicating that many (?) of our coded dilutions and controls. The fourth news. The riddle is solved: somebody results are statistically correct was experiment (Fig. 2 of the report), read came in our backyard and shot the removed at the last minute, after receiving blind, yielded "unbelievable", "incred­ unicorn. my answer (Nature 334, 291, column 3, ible" replicates that cannot be found in the Indeed, only the smile is left . .. with a paragraph 2) . report. Gaylarde's next argument is question: why? It seems illogical that A section called "Collaboration" was indeed damning, but to whom? Counts having scrutinized the paper for two years, also added at the last minute which is filled higher than controls were not ignored but, having urged confirmation of our initial with "mistruths": data from Israel, twice as usual when using percentages, were work in independent laboratories, which described as not available, can be found equated to 100 since it does not make was done in Canada, Israel and Italy . in our Nature paper (Table 2), and the sense to create basophils. We made clear Nature, short of any valid objection, pub­ corresponding raw data were given to in our paper that statistics were done on lished it hastily, to then go these extreme Nature editors in March 1987. The report actual numbers and not on percentages. lengths to . .. deNature it. The answer is by Maitre Simart, the bailiff, describing Metzger (ibid.) and Seagrave (334,559) to be found both in Nature 333, 787, para. the coding and decoding in April, May show no numbers over 100, but are 4, and in the report (334, 287, para. 5), and June 1987, in the presence of the dean immune from criticism. In the latter both of which emphasize warnings against of our faculty, is available to anyone. letters, and that of Bonini (334, 559), homoeopathy. Since, to our surprise, the unbelievable small numbers of experiments are enough Fact twisting, errors, om1ss10ns, Nature report was taken by some as evi­ to show we are wrong. But our exact misquotations and mistruths are symp­ dence negating our data, we have to repeat experimental design was not reproduced. toms of a crusade. Also revealing is that at once more the litany of the amateurish Cell biologists know that release of the question "why publish before the mistakes of the "experts" that "do not mediator is a late event preceded by inquiry", the Nature staff tells inter­ match their extraordinary claim" of being myriads of intracellular signals. Our test viewers: "Benveniste would have with­ the world scientific conscience and judge: monitors at the granule matrix level cation drawn the paper". Clearly the plot was to confusion of single-code done twice with competition with a positively charged dye. scare the bird out of the bush to shoot at double-blind, with circus-like - and In fact , we have occasionally also seen ease. Their indiscriminate fire is typical of fraud-seeking - pantomime of sticking histamine release but this is hardly their disarray in front of these obviously the tape-armoured code to the ceiling reproducible. Using mediator release to positive results. (why not in their pocket since they knew confirm our experiment is as sound as John Maddox (New York Times 28 the code? Because they wanted to catch reproducing data on muscle ATP by September) still declares them non-exist­ the villains tampering with the sacred studying contraction. ent, whereas J. Randi now "admits" paper, hence the "expert at opening Several letters propose hypotheses (Espressor, Lisbon , 1 October) that it is in envelopes"), participation of the referee wilder than our data: the antibody­ fact a fraud. A fraud with five laboratories in the ball-game ( that he had never played mimicking heparin, a mysterious degranu­ and no results! What on Earth is this mess? before), misquotation in the report of lating molecule that yields a rhythmic Unfortunately, facts are stubborn and their own figures , erroneous Fig. 6 cap­ fluctuation that is not so rhythmic, cavita­ so are we. The numerous truth-seeking tions and the immortal "we have a record tion , free radicals .. .. Answer to these scientists all over the world, some of them of the proceedings on an unbroken reel of entertaining fantasies is in Fig. lb of our prompted by our paper and the obviously tape". paper. biased inquiry, have intellectual and tech­ Yet the most salient feature of this To try to raise the tone of the debate, I nical means either to understand the error report is confirmation of our data by two will take the goat/unicorn story from or to establish this new field. There is positive experiments {Fig. 2 and Fig. 6) Randi and the request of "different edito- more to come. Jacques Benveniste .