In favor of scientific sleuthing
“Scientific Sleuths Come in from the Cold” [April 2026, C&EN, page 24] brings much needed attention to a growing problem in scientific literature. I have been a member of the American Chemical Society for over 50 years and see this alarming trend toward papers that are scientifically weak or even pseudoscience with questionable or even fraudulent data. When I retired, I decided to spend some of my newfound free time reviewing papers for the many journals I had published in throughout my career. There is a significant shortage of reviewers because the process is time consuming. A good review takes about 3–4 h, some even longer. Not only do I read the article but often delve into the references to check the basis of their statements. I learned so much from reviewers who pointed out strengths and weaknesses in my papers. It was a humbling experience that made me a better researcher.
Scientific sleuthing is an excellent endeavor for those who are concerned about the integrity of science. I always ask why scientific fraud seems to be occurring more today. The answer is always around incentives. New researchers are trying to establish themselves. Publishing in international journals is strongly encouraged. With these pressures and the advent of easy access to AI, it is not surprising that paper mills exist. The question is, what should the scientific community do about it? The article suggests one solution and should be advanced with a variety of approaches that the different sleuths suggested.
As a reviewer, I feel these papers should never have been published in the first place. Maybe the post-publishing approaches that the article discussed could be applied prepublication to flag articles. We need reviewers to do their job and check these papers more thoroughly. Maybe we retired ACS members still can contribute to this important scientific effort.
Anthony Kriech
Indianapolis
Against scientific sleuthing
If you’re tabulating votes on the concept described in “Scientific Sleuths Come in from the Cold,” put me down for a very strong no!
While I appreciate the author’s efforts to describe the current “sleuthing” movement, I was quickly moved to alarm as the significance formed in my consciousness: the potential for self-appointed “sleuths,” who are not bound by any standards nor accountable to anyone or anything, to weaponize and control scientific publication at large!
An analogous situation is playing out in our political arena in the US, with devastating effect. Implementing the recommended process (sleuthing) would have the effect of removing one more barrier to a political takeover: a free scientific press that can muster actual data to refute those attempting an antidemocratic takeover. Instead, let’s get behind the principle of refereed publications, with editorial review boards to police that element, as opposed to self-appointed judges. There is a difference.
“Self-appointment” is in no way a “pillar of democracy.” It is instead an open invitation to chaos mongers to seize control of just one more avenue in our formerly free press. Nothing in the article spoke to the legitimacy and qualifications of the so-called research integrity investigators themselves. They are instead presumed to be benign defenders of the faith, pursuing justice against an asserted, but unproven, malign movement. Such sleuths were also presumed to be competent in the areas that they judged.
I would have preferred that the author first established by objective means that such a problem truly exists, complete with references, and of what relevant magnitude compared to the overall total of scientific publications. This could be followed by some independent vetting of the individual “sleuths” cited in their article. To this reader, this is an example of the need to establish objective standards before attempting any judgments.
Accomplishing all this requires a process, the details of which are beyond the bounds of this short letter. My suggestion is that you convene a discussion aimed at creating such a process.
Lou Floyd
Independence, Ohio
Coaching lab safety
As I started reading the April 2026 issue of C&EN, I saw “Hazardous Chemicals Pile Up in K–12 Science Labs,” by Myriam Vidal Valero [page 48]. This seven-page report really got into the issues surrounding old and often unlabeled chemicals in school laboratories. When I got to the sections dealing with support from local and state organizations, I was looking for a most obvious support program from the American Chemical Society itself: the ACS Science Coaches program!
I am a multiyear participant of Science Coaches, which pairs volunteer chemists with elementary, middle, and high school teachers. One of the suggested activities involves helping science teachers manage and clean up their chemical storerooms. I reread the article very slowly looking for the inclusion of this program. Not found. I would have thought that an ACS publication would include an ACS program that emphasizes solutions to common laboratory problems in school districts. The Science Coaches program is very rewarding and informative for the science teachers while the Coaches bring years of chemical safety practices right into the classroom. Every opportunity should be taken to publicize this program and the contributions provided to local schools.
Robert L. Solsky
Big Flats, New York
Zero waste in the lab
In the 1970s and ’80s, I ran the company Zero Waste Systems Inc. In addition to our many projects for reusing industrial chemicals of all descriptions, we collected many thousands of lab chemicals for resale. We sold them for half price to any customer. We bought the entire Dow Chemical stockroom for $25, and hundreds of cartons of brand-new chemicals came from the Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley national labs all the time, plus many other sources. We had the largest stockroom of lab chemicals in California.
The problem “Hazardous Chemicals Pile Up in K–12 Science Labs” describes may masquerade as a chemical storage problem, but it is not. It is a defect in the attitude of all Americans, but in this case, our chemists. The garbage industry urges us to think of anything we don’t want as a disposable waste to throw away. This extends to unwanted drums and tanks as well as bottles of chemicals. We are told they can be buried in the ground and forgotten about, leading to abandonment and lack of caring. There is an alternative, which is to reuse everything. Because chemicals can be a hazard, they tend to be carefully managed with intact labels. The messes you describe are the exception, but even they should not exist, and would not if we were not bedeviled with this throwaway mentality. Our company stood ready to take any excess lab chemicals for resale. There was no reason for anyone to put them into a cabinet to forget them.
In this magazine we are focusing on chemicals, but the social defect of the throwaway mentality applies to all industries’ goods. We are assaulted by discarded plastics, electronics, food, and everything else, all covering our planet and poisoning it. Universal reuse is the only answer. The “waste problem” is solvable only if we use the tools of science instead of magic.
Paul Palmer
Vacaville, California
2026 American Chemical Society
