Metabolic theory spat heats up

The authors of a controversial theory about the scaling of metabolic rate are demanding the retraction of a paper that criticized their work in a letter published in the November 1 issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology.

The theory, proposed by Geoffrey West and collaborators a decade ago, explains how basal metabolic rate and other physiological features vary with body size. In 2005, West, currently at the Santa Fe Institute, published an invited review in JEB detailing recent advances in the field. In response, José Guilherme Chaui-Berlinck of the Universidade de São Paulo last year published a paper in the journal questioning both the empirical support for the model and its mathematical derivation.

But according to West and his colleagues, Chaui-Berlinck's conclusion was based on a mistranscription of one of their equations and an error in his calculus. "He made a pretty fundamental mistake, and we were surprised it got through the reviewing process," Brian Enquist of the University of Arizona, the corresponding author of the JEB letter, told The Scientist.

Enquist also blamed the editorial process, claiming that none of his collaborators, who are intimately familiar with their scaling model, reviewed the paper. Also, he said, "If someone accuses an author of basic mathematical mistakes, wouldn't you ask the authors to respond to or review the paper?"

JEB Editor-in-Chief Hans Hoppeler disputed this notion. "There is a lot of direct criticism that does not go to the author of the original paper. That is up to the editors to decide," he said. He added that Chaui-Berlinck's paper was thoroughly reviewed before publication.

Chaui-Berlinck conceded in his reply, also published in the November 1 issue, that he had made some mistakes, but told The Scientist, "The principal finding of my paper is still correct."

Outside researchers are still unsure what this latest dispute means for the field. In an Email, ecologist Helene Müller-Landau at the University of Minnesota wrote, "I suspect that West, Enquist et al. will continue repeating their central arguments and others will continue repeating the same central critiques, for years to come, until the weight of evidence finally leads one or the other to win out."

Hoppeler said the journal has no plans to retract the original paper, and has never retracted a paper under his tenure, and he would only consider doing so if it contained fraudulent data. He said this case is a difference of opinion, which is why the journal published the unedited correspondence of both authors. "That fulfills the criteria for scientific publishing," he said, "and if anybody is unable to make a judgment now he can consult a biologist or statistician."

Brendan Borrell
mail@the-scientist.com


Links within this article:

B. Grant, "The powers that might be," The Scientist, March 1, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/2007/3/1/42/1/

V.M. Savage et al., "Comment on 'A critical understanding of the fractal model of metabolic scaling,'" J Exp Biol, 210: 3873-3874, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/17951428

G.B. West et al., "A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology," Science, 276,122 -126, 1997.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/9082983

S. Bunk, "Do energy transport systems shape organisms?" The Scientist, December 7, 1998.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18316/

G.B. West and J.H. Brown, "The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization," J. Exp. Biol. 208: 1575-1592, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/15855389

M.L. Phillips, "Study challenges metabolic scaling law," The Scientist, January 26, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23012/

J.G. Chaui-Berlinck, "A critical understanding of the fractal model of metabolic scaling," J. Exp. Biol. 209,3045 -3054, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/16888053