BioTechniquesVol. 46, No. 5 From the EditorOpen AccessBeyond Darwin: The Future of Molecular BiologyDouglas McCormickDouglas McCormick*E-mail Address: douglas.mccormick@informausa.comEditorial Director, BioTechniquesPublished Online:25 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000113153AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.-Charles Darwin, MA. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. From the last paragraph.A year ago, we knew that 2009 would be Charles Darwin's year. We knew that our colleagues at other journals would all properly honor the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species. But when BioTechniques started planning this year's special review issue, we wanted to look forward, not backward. We had, after all, just completed our retrospective 25th Anniversary issue, and frankly, we did not want to join what we expected to be a long (albeit distinguished) roster of historical assessments of, well, the evolution of evolution.The result is Beyond Darwin: The Future of Molecular Biology. We invited leading researchers to survey the life-science landscape and report what they see as biology's most promising new investigational tools.But why, then, keep Darwin in the title at all? Because there is a sense in which Darwin's own method of discovery now dominates modern biology. Certainly today's science would have been impossible without the cause-and-effect concepts of evolution. But perhaps more important, Darwin was unique in his ability to gather, retain, and synthesize huge amounts of information—to see through to the fundamental patterns behind the data. Only recently has technology allowed scientists in general to undertake studies that rival in scope the investigations that Charles Darwin undertook alone.So we wanted to try to gather clues to the lifesciences' next few years or decades. Some of those hints should be apparent now: When I first started covering molecular biology in 1984, the general shapes of genomics and proteomics were already becoming clear … to some researchers, at least. After Lee Hood first explained two-dimensional electrophoresis to me, I remember walking through New York's Washington Square Park in a pleasant daze, letting the implications unfold in my imagination: panoplies of differential displays of proteins expressed in different tissues in varying states of development, health, and disease. By the early '90s, I had begun to think that, if I were just then starting a research career of my own, I would study not genes but "junk" DNA, looking between the exons for the logic of the biological machine.As we assembled The Future of Molecular Biology, we asked our contributors to assess current trends and predict the evolution of technique—the methods that will move us to finer resolutions, larger scales, higher throughputs, and clearer resolution; the tools that will fulfill the promises of genomics, epigenetics, proteomics, metabolomics, systems biology, and whatever may come next.We also challenged contributors to consider some questions: Can you see among today's emerging methodologies a strong but not-quite-recognized theme for biological research? How do you see it developing, or (better yet) how should it develop? What are today's—and tomorrow's—most interesting methodological challenges? What kinds of data do we need most but cannot attain with current technology? What technical advances would bring those data within reach?We present some responses in this issue, but the questions will continue. Please take a moment to consider what answers you would give, and how you see the road leading to tomorrow.And if the answer is interesting, please share it.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 46, No. 5 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 25 April 2018 Published in print April 2009 Information© 2009 Author(s)PDF download

BioTechniquesVol. 46, No. 3 From the EditorOpen AccessMalleus MalefactorumDouglas McCormickDouglas McCormick*E-mail Address: douglas.mccormick@informausa.comBioTechniquesPublished Online:25 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000113096AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail The other day, we discovered that the author of a submitted paper appeared to have cribbed some of his discussion from a web site belonging to someone else. These things happen, from time to time, and each case is different: the magnitude of the sin ranges from cardinal to venial.Consider a spate of review articles on drug delivery technologies submitted a few years ago to another journal of which I was then editor. There seemed to be dozens of them, though in reality there were only five or six. All came from second-rank technical universities in a single country (which we will not, for now, identify), and all seemed to be the products of a highly systematized process. The method was simple: type a topic into Medline, download the titles and abstracts, do a minimal rewrite (generally by turning active voice to passive and passive to active), and string the results together. Voila, there you have your review, ready for publication.Once we learned the pattern, these automated reviews were fairly easy to spot and reject.But it was uncomfortable to realize just how much journals depend on the good faith and candor of their scientific communities—and how vulnerable they are to willful deceit.Research misconduct of any kind is profoundly depressing. Every time it happens, it comes as a shock. The outrage mixes with a whisper of sympathy, to make a disorienting cocktail. "What if there's an innocent explanation?" asks a little voice, to which a louder voice rejoins, "How dare they!"One can't help imagining the forces that might drive a researcher into this sort of career-destroying crime. Sure, it's easy to loathe a conscienceless fraud—fabricating or stealing data for personal gain, for the sake of a big grant or a fat venture investment.But one imagines other cases, as well: the desperately exhausted post-doc out of his depth, panicking because his experiment has collapsed yet again, who makes up data to support results he knows have to be true, just to make the pain of failure go away. The bewildered non-English speaker who borrows a phrase, and then a sentence, and finally whole paragraphs from the web or an out-of-the-way journal, because they explain the case far better than she ever could. Confronting cases like these first-hand, or even writing about them second-hand (as we must too often do in our newsletter), is dispiriting.But is forgiveness possible, since intentional falsehood had caused so much damage, and the literature, once polluted, is so hard to cleanse?Consider just one recent case. At the beginning of February, the Sunday Times of London (1) alleged that the lead author had falsified data underlying an influential 1998 Lancet article (2). The paper linked autism and colitis with MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) vaccination in twelve children, claiming that signs of autism appeared shortly after vaccination. In fact, said the Times, the children's medical records showed that the first symptoms of autism appeared well before or well after vaccination. The initial 1998 paper fueled parents' fears of vaccination, and sent UK vaccination rates plummeting. The result: in 1998, England and Wales saw 56 cases of measles. In 2008, there were 1,348.The literature is now corrected, but the damage is done. While one hates to fall back on proverbs, it seems that in publishing, as in medicine, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.References1. Deer, B. Feb. 8 2009. Hidden records show MMR truth. Sunday Times.Google Scholar2. Wakefield, A.J., S.H. Murch, A. Anthony, J. Linnell, D.M. Casson, M. Malik, M. Berelowitz, A.P. Dhillon, et al.. 1998. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyper-plasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351:637–41 Partial retraction in: Murch, S.H., A. Anthony, D.H. Casson, M. Malik, M. Berelowitz, A.P. Dhillon, M.A. Thomson, A. Valentine, et al. 2004. Lancet 363:750.Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 46, No. 3 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 25 April 2018 Published in print March 2009 Information© 2009 Author(s)PDF download

It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, Of all things physical and metaphysical, Of all things human and all things super-human, Of all true manifestations of the head, Of the heart, of the soul, That the life is recognizable in its expression, That form ever follows function. This is the law. —Louis Sullivan, 1896. "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered," Lippincott's Magazine 57:403-409 (March).

www.biotechniques.com ı BioTechniques 13 L ong, long ago, my father told me a story about the dinner President John F. Kennedy hosted for 49 American Nobel Prize winners in 1962. “I think,” Kennedy told his guests, “this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Unlike some of the tales we heard at our parents’ knee, this one seems to square with the historical record.

“I am not a number. I am a free man!” Patrick McGoohan's Number Six declared in The Prisoner, the 1960s BBC-TV series with a worldwide cult following.

BioTechniquesVol. 46, No. 7 From the EditorOpen AccessCan We Really Hope to Control Healthcare Spending?Douglas McCormickDouglas McCormick*E-mail Address: douglas.mccormick@informausa.comBioTechniquesPublished Online:25 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000113173AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail In May, President Barack Obama and U.S. healthcare policy makers met with prominent hospital administrators, physicians, drug makers, device makers, insurers, and labor leaders to try to find the will to slow the growth of American public and private medical spending.Those at the meeting represented, as Mr. Obama noted, "different constituencies with different sets of interests. They've not always seen eye to eye with each other or with our government on what needs to be done to reform healthcare in this country.""We are determined to work together to provide quality, affordable coverage and access for every American.… We believe that the proper approach to achieve and sustain reduced cost growth is one that will: improve the population's health; continuously improve quality; encourage the advancement of medical treatments, approaches, and science; streamline administration; and encourage efficient care delivery based on evidence and best practice."—Healthcare leaders' letter to President Obama, May 11, 2009 (1)The challenge is not to reduce healthcare costs, but just to reduce the rate of growth, currently projected at about 6.2% per year over the coming decade (1). According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product grew by an average of about 2.9% per year from 1991 through 2007 (well ahead of most of the rest of the world). In 2008, despite the financial meltdown, the American economy grew by 1.1%. In 2009, GDP should drop by 2.8%, remain flat in 2010, and work its way up to 2.6% annual growth in five years (2).Clearly, healthcare costs will continue to grow much faster than the economy. Medical expenses, public and private, account for 17.6% of today's GDP. A 6.2% annual increase would take that proportion to 20.3% in 2018.The U.S. administration now aims to slow the growth rate by about 1.5%—to the neighborhood of 4.7%. Healthcare costs will still grow faster than the general economy, but the disparity will be smaller.In their pledge of support to the slower-growth goal, healthcare leaders proposed to economize by (i) simplifying and standardizing administration; (ii) reducing both over- and under-use of healthcare; (iii) encouraging coordinated care; (iv) promoting evidence-based best practices; and (v) reducing costs via "common-sense improvements" in delivery models, health information technology, workforce, and regulatory reforms.Mr. Obama called the meeting "extraordinarily productive" and the participants "essential to the work of health care reform in this country."It seems logical that better management, more rational treatment, and better science can help us spend our medical dollars better.Yet even if we succeed in all of these pursuits, can we really hope to cap healthcare spending? Or will healthcare spending necessarily grow as science expands our power to heal?Illnesses we once thought of as single entities have fragmented into dozens or hundreds of separate conditions, each distinguished by its own biomarkers, prognoses, and treatments. We discover new therapies and preventives for each condition. Medicine extends our lives, and with the extended years often come additional ills.In short, our "treatment space" is spreading continually on three axes—number of conditions, treatments per condition, and conditions per patient. And so, of course, we spend more on treatment. The real question isn't how much we spend, but how much we get in return. If more money brings more health (a separate analysis), what choice do we have but to spend more? What—after air, water, food, shelter, and family—is a better investment?References1. Stephen, J. Ubl, J. James Rohack, Karen Ignagni, Billy Tauzin, Rich Umbdenstock, and Dennis Rivera. May 11 2009. Letter to President Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/05-11-09_Health_Costs_Letter_to_the_President.pdf.Google Scholar2. World Economic Outlook. April 2009. Crisis and Recovery. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. p. 189. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/pdf/text.pdf.Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 46, No. 7 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Published online 25 April 2018 Published in print June 2009 Information© 2009 Author(s)PDF download

BioTechniquesVol. 46, No. 1 From the EditorOpen AccessWho Should Speak at the People's House?The US president-elect hopes to make scientific lectures part of the White House social calendar. We ask BioTechniques' readers: Who should be asked to speak, and why?Douglas McCormickDouglas McCormick*E-mail Address: douglas.mccormick@informausa.comBioTechniquesSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:25 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000113047AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Long, long ago, my father told me a story about the dinner President John F. Kennedy hosted for 49 American Nobel Prize winners in 1962. “I think,” Kennedy told his guests, “this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Unlike some of the tales we heard at our parents' knee, this one seems to square with the historical record.The anecdote came to mind after watching an exchange between host Tom Brokaw and President-elect Barack Obama on the Dec. 7 edition of NBC News' “Meet the Press.” It was just a fleeting comment near the close of the hour-long interview, and passed so quickly I almost missed it, sandwiched as it was between two higher-profile items: the nomination of Gen. Eric Shinseki to head the Veterans Administration and Mr. Obama's pledge that, despite his own difficulty quitting smoking, he will see that no-smoking rules are obeyed in his White House.Here is an edited transcript:Brokaw: …Let me ask you as we conclude this program this morning about whether you and Michelle have had any discussions about the impact that you're going to have on this country in other ways besides international and domestic policies… Who are the kinds of artists that you would like to bring to the White House?Obama: …[W]e have thought about this because part of what we want to do is to open up the White House and… remind people…this is the people's house. There is an incredible bully pulpit to be used when it comes to, for example, education. Yes, we're going to have an education policy. Yes, we're going to be putting more money into school construction. But, ultimately, we want to talk about parents reading to their kids. We want to invite kids from local schools into the White House. When it comes to science, elevating science once again, and having lectures in the White House where people are talking about traveling to the stars or breaking down atoms, inspiring our youth to get a sense of what discovery is all about. Thinking about the diversity of our culture and, and inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poetry readings in the White House so that, once again, we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America… [O]ur art and our culture, our science…that's the essence of what makes America special…and we want to project that as much as possible in the White House.Scientific lectures at the White House. If I used exclamation points, I'd use one here. How long has it been since we thought of a president actually embracing and enjoying the challenge of science? Are we really facing a time when American leadership once again accepts scientific inquiry as an integral part of our culture, and not an enemy of it?With regard to whom, exactly, Mr. Obama should invite to the White House, we have some obvious choices. The new president should hear Rita Colwell's (University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University) “Climate, Oceans, Infectious Disease, and Human Health: The Saga of Cholera.” [We heard her in October at Columbia University's annual Presidential Lecture, and wrote about it for the online component of our December 2008 issue (1). He and his administration would also benefit from visits by any of the participants in the extraordinary 2008 James L. Waters Symposium, including Leroy Hood (Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA) talking about P4 medicine (P4 stands for “predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory”), George Church (Harvard University) discussing the means and applications of highspeed, low-cost individual sequencing, or Richard Wilson (Washington University in St. Louis) explaining crop plant genomics or the history of the human genome.Better yet, we would like to hear our readers' suggestions for the White House lectures. So please post your suggestions on the “To the Editor” section at the bottom of the BioTechniques Molecular Biology Forums page (2). If you're shy, write directly to douglas.mccormick@informausa.com. Tell us whom the People of the United States should invite to lecture at the People's House, what we should ask them to talk about, and why the President should listen.References1. McCormick, D. 2008. Washed in a Microbial Sea. BioTechniques Vol. 45, No. 6: (Dec. 2008), www.biotechniques.com.Google Scholar2. “To the Editor,” molecularbiology.forums.biotechniques.com.Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 46, No. 1 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Published online 25 April 2018 Published in print January 2009 Information© 2009 Author(s)PDF download

I am convinced that we have a degree of delight, and that no small one, in the real misfortunes and pains of others. -Edmund Burke, On the Sublime and Beautiful

“Science in the twenty-first century is international and interdisciplinary.” – Rita R. Colwell

BioTechniquesVol. 45, No. 5 From the EditorOpen AccessResearcher ProtectionDouglas McCormickDouglas McCormick*E-mail Address: douglas.mccormick@informausa.comBioTechniquesPublished Online:16 May 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000112971AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Abstract"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."– Oliver Wendell Holmes We find ourselves thinking, more than we expected, about California's new Researcher Protection Act, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sept. 28. The law was introduced last February, but moved onto the legislative fast track in August after animal-rights activists firebombed the home of one University of California researcher and the car of another.The law enlarged the definition of misdemeanor criminal trespass to include entering "the residential real property of an academic researcher…for the purpose of chilling, preventing the exercise of, or interfering with the researcher's academic freedom." (The law will not, for some reason, apply to "persons lawfully engaged in labor union activities.")Creating a special protected class distorts the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law, creating asymmetries that should always be examined carefully. Under the current law, could a researcher tramp through the peonies on an animal-activist's front flowerbed with impunity? On a strictly philosophical level, we would have been happier if the law had prohibited trespass for intellectual intimidation across the board.On a visceral, work-a-day level, of course, we can only say, "Go get 'em, Arnold." As Walt Whitman said, "Do I contradict myself? /Very well then I contradict myself, /(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"The Researcher Protection Act also makes it a misdemeanor "for any person to publish information…describing or depicting an academic researcher or his or her immediate family member, or the location or locations where an academic researcher or his or her immediate family member may be found, with the intent that another person imminently use the information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against the academic researcher or his or her immediate family member, and the information is likely to produce the imminent commission of such a crime."The bill goes on to allow researchers to seek injunctions against such publication "unless the publisher is protected under other provisions of law." A number of advocacy groups publish "hit lists" giving details of their targets' lives. They argue that they are just making sure that their opponents bear public scrutiny. Sometimes, this is indeed the intent. Too often, though, the posting is meant to provoke criminal assault, and the posters fall back on a transparent lie: "We had no idea that anyone would take that kind of action." The tactic is cowardly and despicable.The whole situation makes us hard-core fans of the First Amendment queasy. Part of me wants this provision to sail through judicial review, and part of me is appalled at the prospect. (See Walt Whitman, above.)But we wholeheartedly want the law to effectively combat the midnight skulking and blinkered hatred. How well it will do that remains to be seen.The North American Animal Liberation Press Office (NAALPO) web site lists 19 instances of science-related animal-rights attacks and sabotage in the U.S. in 2008 (through Oct. 9). All but three of these have occurred in California.And three took place after the law was signed. On Oct. 6, according to NAALPO, certain…I'm groping here for an unloaded noun, with less dignity than activists and less bite than vandals…certain individuals claimed to have done the following: slipped live shotgun shells into the mufflers of two UCLA car-pool vans, broken windows in the homes of two UC Berkeley neuroscientists (vandalizing a car belonging to one of them), and poured paint stripper on three cars in the driveway of a UCLA post-doctoral fellow. (A call to the California Highway Patrol, which coordinates anti-terror activities in the state, could not immediately confirm whether the claimed attacks had in fact occurred.)What if The Governator went after them himself?FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByTreatment Methods for Suppression of Leaching Zinc from SBR Infills on Artificial TurfJournal of Environmental Conservation Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 9 Vol. 45, No. 5 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 16 May 2018 Published in print November 2008 Information© 2008 Author(s)PDF download

ScienceDebate and Scientists and Engineers for America have compiled invaluable data on the Science policy positions of American candidates at every level. We owe it to ourselves to take this information to the polls.

Perhaps 16% of cell lines aren't what researchers think they are. With billions of dollars worth of research in jeopardy, NIH is taking its first tentative steps to introduce quality control into cell-line authentication.

Meetings with life science editors and readers remind us that a good journal is a community endeavor, and that community has little to do with technology.

More open access to publicly funded research is a worthy goal, but NIH's Public Access Policy undervalues the publisher's contributions.

BioTechniquesVol. 43, No. 4 From the EditorOpen AccessA Positive Need for Negative DataHow much better might science fare if we habitually shared our misses along with our hits?Douglas McCormickDouglas McCormickBioTechniquesPublished Online:16 May 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000112576AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail For years, we've toyed with the idea of starting a Journal of Null Results (JNR). Back in 2002, we got as far as registering nullresults.com and designing a logo: an empty pair of brackets denoting the null set. Does science need such a journal? If needed, could it work?This ambition is not—or not merely—a desire to found an empire on the failures of others. (Think of it, though: every grant application and thesis proposal and paper would have to document a search of JNR.)One of the first things we're told in science is, "There's no such thing as a failed experiment. Every piece of data teaches you something." One of the greatest experiments in scientific history, Michelson's and Morley's attempt to detect the effects of the luminiferous ether on light transmission, produced a null result. We quickly learn, however, that it's very difficult to build a curriculum vitae out of negative data.HappenstanceThis is a profound cultural error, however. Consider 1000 research coinflipologists, each conducting an experiment of 10 coin tosses. Chances are that two or three of these experiments will come up heads at least nine times out of ten. The three preeminent coin-flippers then publish their data. The 997 "unsuccessful" coin-flippers can't get a paper through review. As far as the literature is concerned, flipped coins tend to come down heads.Consider, too, the baneful effects of a very good hypothesis that happens to be incorrect. It will occur over and over again to bright researchers. These scientists will search the literature and then, finding nothing on their new hypotheses, pursue programs of experiments. Think how much time, energy, and creativity could be constructively re-channeled if all of the negative data were available.So a comprehensive index of negative results seems like a good idea…maybe. A decade ago, when we put the idea to George Poste (now head of the Arizona Biodesign Institute, then Chief Technology Officer at SmithKline Beecham), he was dubious about the scheme, which he called (as far as memory serves) intellectually attractive but fraught with practical difficulties. Experiments "work" when hypothesis, experimental design, detailed method, materials, and execution all align. If any of these elements fail, however, the experiment fails. It can be exceedingly difficult to tell whether the data actually support the null hypothesis—rather than revealing, say, contaminated reagents, sloppy technique, or poor design.Couple that with most researchers' reluctance to publicly air what they consider mistakes, and with the difficulty of finding reviewers canny enough to separate the null-result wheat from the ill-executed chaff, and you wind up with some significant doubts about the workability of the project.A Modest LiteratureThe idea of publishing negative data is not original with us. Social scientists founded the Journal of Spurious Correlations (www.jspurc.org) in 2005. The Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis (www.jasnh.com, for psychologists), and the Journal of Null Results in Biomedicine (www.jnrbm.com) both started in 2002. And Johns Hopkins pathologist Scott E. Kern, M.D., founded the grandfather of the genre, NOGO: the Journal of Negative Observations in Genetic Oncology (www.path.jhu.edu/NOGO) in 1997.None of these efforts has more than scratched the surface of negative results, though. The Journal of Null Results in Biomedicine had published just eight articles through the first 8 months of 2007. NOGO's latest entry is dated 2006.We talked to Professor Kern briefly at the beginning of September. He has indeed found most scientists reluctant to share negative data, which helps other laboratories while not materially advancing their own reputations. This, he says, reflects badly on scientists in general.He remains concerned about the reporting of negative results and increasingly dismayed by the proliferation of negative results masquerading as significant findings. He does note, however, that at least one countervailing trend in his own field of cancer genetics is having a positive impact on negative data: large-scale sequencing, with the data deposited wholesale in vast databases, record the negative data along with the positive. "If you sequence 13,000 genes, and only about 1,300 of them show mutations, then the other 11,700 sequences deposited are essentially null results."Is that, then, the solution? Not a journal but an online registry, chronicling not failure but new successes in defining the frontiers of discovery?FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByNull Effects and Publication Bias in Special Education Research31 May 2017 | Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 42, No. 4Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility7 July 2015 | Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, Vol. 14, No. 1 Vol. 43, No. 4 STAY CONNECTED Metrics History Published online 16 May 2018 Published in print October 2007 Information© 2007 Author(s)PDF download