Sir

Bradford Hawkins recently described an increase in the number of technical and trivial errors appearing in the published scientific literature (Nature 400, 498; 1999). This, it was proposed, is a consequence of the ‘publish or perish’ philosophy of academic institutions. I would like to draw attention to an equally destructive trend: that of publishing banal descriptive reports that fail to enthuse the reader, or indeed the author.

The educational path to becoming a research scientist teaches the importance of detail, experimental rigour and assimilation of large amounts of scientific fact. New graduates are efficient at compiling literature searches, conducting experiments and analysing data. They are often eager to ask and answer fundamental questions of science and fit their experimental findings into a wider perspective of principle. However, they soon find that the scientific community does not reward them for this approach. Until recently, funding bodies and scientific publishers (presumably on advice from their reviewers) have executed a precautionary principle, favouring a conservative approach in scientific proposal and interpretation. The result is a failure of confidence to hypothesize.

The need for imaginative science is at last being recognized by major funding bodies — the W. M. Keck Foundation, among others — that provide funding for young investigators to establish more creative research projects. But, so far, this philosophy is rarely supported in the publication of scientific reports. It is more difficult to get a speculative comment through a reviewer than it is to publish several megabases of genetic sequence. Max Perutz recently drew attention to the plight of too many young postdocs with diminishing career prospects (Nature 399, 299–301; 1999). This indirectly encourages predictable research and publication of trite interpretations of data instead of new insights, because, understandably, scientists are more interested in remaining employed than in taking the risk of rejection from reviewers.

There is an urgent need for the responsible communication of scientific discovery to counteract the public's loss of faith in science. While being didactic in form, it should convey a sense of the excitement and momentum of scientific discovery without being sensationalist. What better place to start than in the scientific press? For this to happen, publishers, reviewers and scientists need encouragement to be brave.