Abstract
Taxol (common name: paclitaxel) is an extremely important component of drugs for the
treatment of various cancers. Thirty years after the discovery of its effectiveness,
a metabolic precursor of Taxol (10-deacetylbaccatin III) is still primarily extracted
from needles of European yew trees. In order to meet the considerable demand, hopes
were pinned on the possibilities of biotechnological production from the very beginning.
In 1993, as if by chance, Taxol was supposedly discovered in fungi that grow endobiotically
in yew trees. This finding aroused hopes of biotechnological use to produce fungal
Taxol in large quantities in fermenters. It never came to that. Instead, a confusing
flood of publications emerged that claimed to have detected Taxol in more and more
eukaryotic and even prokaryotic species. However, researchers never reproduced these
rather puzzling results, and they could certainly not be applied on an industrial
scale. This paper will show that some of the
misguided approaches were apparently based on a seemingly careless handling of sparse
evidence and on at least questionable publications. Apparently, the desired gold rush
of commercial exploitation was seductive. Scientific skepticism as an indispensable
core of good scientific practice was often neglected, and the peer review process
has not exerted its corrective effect. Self-critical reflection and more healthy skepticism
could help to reduce the risk of such aberrations in drug development. This article
uses this case study as a striking example to show what can be learned from the Taxol
case in terms of research ethics and the avoidance of questionable research practices.
Keywords
Taxus brevifolia
-
Taxus baccata
- Taxus - Taxaceae - Taxol - paclitaxel - good scientific practice - research integrity
