When evidence adds up for some but not others

It is more often than not hard to reaching solid conclusions based on a mix of science findings. How do get think our way through our biases and findings that vary in their quality, reliability.  Here  I am merely going to provide the flavor and features of an article ‘False Positive’ written by Cohen and Enserink published in Science 23 September 2011. The article itself is long and detailed and could easily be set to music as an opera or perhaps be the basis of a TV soap opera. The article includes intrigue, accusations of unethical behavior, conflicts of interest, scientists being isolated and ostracized and emotional ‘sturm und drang’. To get the full flavor of the drama and the science you have to read the article. It is a terrific story that also illustrates how difficult it is to come to firm conclusions in the life sciences especially when it comes to the biology of diseases.

The scene opens in a world that many would that some would argue is imaginary, chronic fatigue syndrome (CSF). Along comes a scientist, Judy Mikovits, that purportedly found that 2/3 of patients with CSF had the mouse retrovirus XMRV in their blood. The finding delighted people with CSF since it provided biological proof positive that their illness was not just in their head. It may be the basis of a cause and perhaps a cure for CSF. That is where the play begins.

Along the way it turns out that other scientists could not repeat their findings. Some felt they had proof that the original findings were based on a contaminant and not XMRV. Other (prominent) scientist such as Robert Gallo doubted that a mouse retrovirus could even infect humans. There were critiques that have gone back and forth with the pro XMRV virus in CSF forces arguing that they have answered all criticism and the non-believers arguing this is not the case. The original findings ended up having commercial value in the form of a test (presumably for CSF). While the negative data kept piling up the response was that those trying to replicate the original findings were not duplicating methods precisely. The theme of trust and free-floating beliefs entered this science play. Proving a relationship between XMRV and CSF had a steep uphill climb given; CSF may not exist, the virus is unlikely to jump from mouse to man, findings seem unreliable, commercial exploitation, patients wanted their illness recognized as real and not a figment of their imagination so anything that brings science on their side was a plus, and later in this saga XMRV was also linked to autism, and finally there were telling questions about the ancestral cell line of XMRV. Finally in relatively recent studies it turns out that XMRV was also found in controls for CFS patients. Mikovits continues to believe her version of the XMRV story and she has supporters and lots of naysayers.

So the saga continues along with a demonstration of how hard it is to establish reliable cumulative knowledge in science.