Editors of the journal Analytical Chemistry yellow flags raised today on a paper on the toxicology of silicone breast implants . The original study, published on 1 May of the magazine, reported finding high levels of a potentially dangerous form of platinum in blood and tissues of women who had silicone implants in their bodies for years. Since then, however, experts have disputed several of the methods used to reach conclusions. Two of these criticisms appear in the August 1 issue of the journal, with an editorial by two editors of the newspaper that said at least one of the method of the newspaper "falls short of the standard of this newspaper." Consequently, publishers advise their readers to "exercise caution" when evaluating the paper.
The dispute stems from work published by Ernest Lykissa of ExperTox Inc., a company of toxicology tests in Deer Park, Texas, and Susan Maharaj Centre for Research on Environmental Medicine in New Market, Maryland. They reported that women they studied showed not only high levels of platinum in their bodily fluids and tissues, but also chemically reactive forms of the metal, including one known as platinum (VI), which is highly reactive and unstable. A less reactive form of platinum was used as a catalyst for making gels incorporated in many silicone breast implants. Lykissa Maharaj and the report suggested that platinum turned more reactive in the body of women with implants and thus became a potential source of toxic reactions experienced by those with silicone implants.
Among the complaints about the work, but that was Lykissa Maharaj and relied on a device called an ion chromatograph, which is usually used to differentiate reactive platinum. In addition, experts noted that the control subjects had platinum levels were not statistically different experimental subjects, which are not expected.
Lykissa and Maharaj could not be reached for comment, but the pair did not retract their paper.
Royce Murray, a chemist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and chemical analysis 's editor, said the paper Lykissa and Maharaj was sent to a normal contingent of three examiners, but these authors failed to catch many problems. Therefore, he said, "a mistake was made, I think in the publication of this document." Under normal circumstances, Murray said, the newspaper is willing to let scientists dispute play in the correspondence between critical and the authors. However, in this case, he said, "we thought we should not expect the scientific community to set the record straight because of the public interest."
related site
- chemical analysis publishing
0 Komentar