Comments on Michael Crichton's "Next"

I have started reading Next by Michael Crichton. I hated State of Fear and would not have read this one if someone had not given it to me to read. In the part I have just finished he paints the review process of failed because of the few cases of fraud such as the one by the the Korean group. A lot of his comments reflect the views of someone who does not understand the review process. One of the assumptions that must be made when you receive a paper for review is that the data is honestly presented. A person who would be reviewing a person is an active scientist and would not have the time to review the primary data in each case - for micrographs this means standing over the scope with the person. If one says why not use people who only review papers then you have to look at those who would be in these groups - people who could not sustain a research program. The one thing about science is that it does self correct. If something is published that is of interest others will try to replicate the work and extend it. Word gets out fast if work cannot be repeated. If one publishes fraudulent work in an obscure field where replication is less likely the question is why - no one cares about the work.