How results will out

The Manchester base will be set up as a charitable company limited by guarantee, jointly owned by the funding partners; the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. Under the scheme half a million middle-aged people will be picked at random and invited by their doctor to provide general information about their health. They will be asked to give a blood sample, be interviewed by a nurse and complete a questionnaire about their lifestyle, physical environment, diet and health. They will then be studied over 10, 20, 30 or maybe 50 years, to look at how their destiny is shaped by the twin influence of genes and environment. In particular, it is the biomarkers in the blood that are present because of the function of a gene, which excite researchers. There will also be a separate oversight body to oversee the work, independent of both the users of the information and the scientists involved in developing it. The oversight body will be responsible for ensuring that the samples and the data collected are used responsibly and within the terms of the consent obtained from the participants. But how reassuring this will be to participants worried about some of the potential aspects of the study is yet to become clear. Scientific issues have rarely been out of the press in recent years, but many scientists are uneasy about how research is reported to the public. Despite the obvious impact of research findings, relatively little attention has been paid to how and when they should be communicated. A new working group, chaired by Patrick Bateson, including members from academic and industrial science, scientific and medical publishing, journalism and consumer affairs, is beginning with a call for evidence. The study will examine closely the practice of peer review. The working group will seek views on whether there are any other methods of quality control or filter. The working group will also ask whether peer review could, or should, be changed to provide the public with greater confidence in research results and whether proposed changes in practice might help or hinder. For example, some journals and archives are now experimenting with a form of 'open review' in which papers are posted on the web and reviews are added in real time. It has been suggested that this 'less secretive' form of review will benefit authors and referees alike. But what …