Readers familiar with the Current Opinion series of review journals know that their reviews are meant to be concise, up-to-date discussions presenting the authors' assessment of research in their subject areas. Authors are meant to analyze the status of their fields over approximately one year, giving readers at all levels of experience the benefit of their own knowledge, background, and judgment as experts in those fields. This should enable readers to gain at least a general understanding of subjects in which they are interested, even though they may not be specialists themselves. So is this, after all, what the readers get?

The hurdle of scientific balance should be easy to jump. After all, scientists are trained to distinguish between significant data and spurious results. Despite this, or possibly because of it, balance is not always easily achieved. How does one decide in a scientifically justifiable way which results or methods are more important than others? When does one decide to put a foot down in one camp rather than another? These are questions that scientists continually face, and that we who edit the Current Opinion journals ask them to answer, in writing, for all the world to see.

This editorial arose from my being told that a reader had cancelled his subscription to one of the Current Opinion journals because he felt it had begun publishing "typical white bread reviews of data" instead of the "original, opinionated, and scholarly analyses" he had subscribed to read. Obviously, there is a problem here. On one hand we are asking for a subjective commentary on research, and on the other we often receive the rather nonjudgmental commentary that scientists are trained to produce. How do we get the authors to break out of their normal "scientific" mode and enter one more potentially controversial? Is there anything other than training that prevents them from writing reviews that live up to the name of the journals?

I believe that there are two main causes for the lack of opinion in reviews: success, and fear of lack of success. The success side is multifaceted, with elements from both authors and journals. Perhaps, before the Current Opinion journals became well known, authors felt they could use them to air their views on the basis that either their opinions would be borne out with time, or they could sink into oblivion with the weight of subsequent research. Now that the journals have become accepted internationally, authors might feel they don't want to publish a prediction in a prestigious review journal and then find in later years their theory disproved and coming back to haunt them. Authors may also fear upsetting or annoying other scientists by presenting a contentious point of view or by doubting the validity of a result or its interpretation. Until data have been proved beyond doubt, scientists might feel it is best not to make a decision, and so comment fully on every aspect of an area being investigated, rather than the aspects they believe merit further study. This is one reason why authors prefer to delve deep in the library to retrieve early work in addition to the data obtained during the period under review, despite the fact that it has frequently been reviewed in depth before and without the benefit of their opinions on it being bestowed on the reader.

So, in addition to fear of professional repercussions from publishing their ideas, is there any other barrier to opinionated reviewing? My feeling is that there have been so many changes to funding rules and regulations and so many reductions to the availability of funds that people feel even less comfortable about putting their feelings on the line, for fear that someone on a grant committee somewhere will hold those opinions against them and refuse to fund a grant application.

Experience is a double-edged sword: scientists have to balance the effect of their reputations against the sensationalism of being controversial. Less well known scientists may find it easier to be controversial by publicly stating skepticism of highly experienced scientists' ideas, and potentially to get backing to investigate those ideas, but have to bear in mind that they don't have the networking contacts of better-known scientists who can financially risk supporting unpopular theories. On the other hand, well-known scientists may have the financial clout, but may be unwilling to jeopardize it by enthusing over an idea that is being disputed.

Is there any solution, then, to this quandary? I think there is, but it's a challenge. Until we can return to the idea of science as mutually beneficial inquiry rather than competition, we'll continue to receive reviews that hesitate to say what the authors really think. Science doesn't have to be a boring list of facts. It can be provocative, fun, discussion-promoting stuff. But we have to be willing to comment on others, as well as be commented upon, for that to happen. By all means, think, analyze, dissect; just don't stop there. Share your enthusiasm.