Mol. Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on December 5, 2005
Molecular Human Reproduction 2005 11(10):693; doi:10.1093/molehr/gah210
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editorial |
Comment from the Editor-in-chief
In this issue of Molecular Human Reproduction, we are publishing a very interesting article by Blaschitz and colleagues (ref), where they have revisited the issue of HLA-G production in the trophoblast. They come to the surprising conclusion that some previously held notions about the manner in which this important molecule works may be misinterpreted. Readers can imagine that such an observation can generate quite a heated debate. This is indeed the case here, and we, as editors, have taken the unusual step, with the full co-operation of the authors of the article, to publish some of this debate in this issue in the form of a series of short letters, introduced by an excellent overview from Professor Sargent from Oxford University. I strongly encourage everyone to read the original article and the debate, which it has sparked. This is the elemental stuff of science, and most importantly highlights for me the manner in which we still make so many assumptions about the way molecules are expressed and function. We should never forget that all of our assessments about molecules are indirect, depending for visualization in tissues upon antibodies, which we assume to have certain properties, and amplification protocols, which magnify sensitivity and where it is justified to ask whether the amount present can be functionally relevant. Making use of highly sensitive PCR methods, we assume that the stochastically amplified products represent real transcripts in vivo, and that these can actually be used in vivo to generate protein. We assume that a product measured in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is indeed what we think it should be, but again there are always alternative interpretations.The essence of science is that our observations and hypotheses have to stand the test of time, be reproduced by others, and corroborated by independent studies using diverse techniques. Thus, Although the first description of a phenomenon may register a high impact, the subsequent studies reinforcing, confusing or reversing the findings are just as important. Although editors always have difficulties in judging the degree of novelty or innovation in an article, the present discussion emphasizes how important it is to question existing dogma and not to mistake a hypothesis for absolute truth.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||