On May 30, 2011, a person significant in analytical chemistry passed away—Rosalyn S. Yalow (New York Times, page A21, June 2, 2011). Yalow was the co-inventor, in the 1950s with her colleague Solomon A. Berson at the Bronx Veterans Administration Hospital, of the experiment known as radioimmunoassay (RIA). In experiments on insulin metabolism, Berson and Yalow observed a slower disappearance of administered ¹³¹I-labeled insulin from the plasma of patients who had previously been administered insulin (for therapeutic reasons), relative to those never treated with insulin. Their subsequent hypothesis that antibodies developed in the former patients as a result of insulin treatment—an idea new to the field of immunology at that time—was the spur for seeking an analytical method sensitive enough to detect those antibodies. The successful detection—and the invention of RIA—were based on separations by paper and starch block electrophoresis and radiochemical detection of antibody-bound ¹³¹I-insulin. The researchers also showed that a competitive displacement procedure gave a quantitative measure of insulin concentration. In the subsequent decade, an increasing volume of publications using RIA for a growing diversity of analytes ensued. Dr. Yalow was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1977. Her colleague Berson died in 1972; he would otherwise undoubtedly have shared the prize. The invention of RIA and a number of its applications are described in Dr. Yalow’s Nobel Lecture. She also observes that Berson’s and her manuscript demonstrating the presence of insulin-binding antibodies in insulin-treated patients was declined by Science and on its first submission, by the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The latter’s decline letter (by Editor Stanley E. Bradley) was included in the Nobel Lecture and is thereby immortalized. The work was subsequently published in JCI but only after a negotiated omission of “insulin antibody” from the title. RIA today has many later-invented competitor immunoassay strategies that are not reliant on radioisotopes and their accompanying baggage. This Editorial pays tribute to Drs. Berson and Yalow’s work and its impact on analytical chemistry. Nearly every current issue of Analytical Chemistry contains at least one paper exploiting highly specific antibody–antigen interactions as part of the measurement accomplishment. This Editorial is also to make an observation about the publication process. I take special note of the phrase “dogmatic conclusions which are not warranted by the data” in Editor Bradley’s letter. How many times have my Editor colleagues and I seen this kind of reviewer language in reviews of submitted manuscripts! How many times have we accepted such reviewer statements as fatal and pulled the reject lever (usually!). It is a vital issue; the basis for scientific advancement relies in fact on the researcher “making conclusions which are warranted by the data”. If they do not, then a quality journal should not agree to publication. Editors want reviewers to think on this essential level in assessing suitability for publication! How then do Editors avoid errors in dealing with manuscripts that are contrary to current thinking yet may be highly significant? I believe that there is no substitute for the Editor being an extremely competent scholar in his or her own right and having a sense of the essential tenants of thinking in the analytical chemistry field. There is no substitute for seeking the same qualities in the reviewers that the Editor chooses and relies upon. It is also necessary to preserve a capacity for scientific excitement on the Editor’s desk—to have a thrill at seeing a manuscript that exudes original thinking and presents really new experiments and to spend some extra time considering it. I have had some memorable such moments. My fellow Editors’ and my goal is to gather the most impactful new measurement science into the pages (electronic though they may now be) of Analytical Chemistry. We are happy to be challenged with pioneering papers announcing discoveries as significant as that of the RIA. This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

中文翻译：

---

编辑的科学发现与挑战

2011年5月30日，分析化学领域的重要人物Rosalyn S. Yalow逝世（《纽约时报》，第A21页，2011年6月2日）。Yalow于1950年代与她的布朗克斯·韦特兰斯人管理医院的同事所罗门·A·伯森（Solomon A. Berson）共同发明了这项被称为放射免疫测定（RIA）的实验。在胰岛素代谢实验中，Berson和Yalow观察到给药^131的消失较慢相对于从未接受过胰岛素治疗的患者，以前曾接受过胰岛素治疗（出于治疗原因）的患者血浆中的I标记胰岛素。他们随后的假设是，胰岛素治疗在以前的患者体内产生了抗体（当时是免疫学领域的一个新想法），促使人们寻求一种足够灵敏的分析方法来检测那些抗体。成功的检测（以及RIA的发明）基于纸和淀粉嵌段电泳分离以及结合抗体^131的放射化学检测胰岛素 研究人员还表明，竞争性置换程序可以定量测量胰岛素浓度。在随后的十年中，随之而来的是越来越多的出版物使用RIA进行分析物的多样化。Yalow博士于1977年被授予诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。她的同事Berson于1972年去世；他的同事Berson于1972年去世。否则，他无疑将分享奖金。Yalow博士的Nobel演讲中介绍了RIA的发明及其许多应用。她还观察到，《科学》杂志拒绝了Berson和她的手稿证明胰岛素治疗的患者中存在胰岛素结合抗体，并且在《临床研究杂志》首次提交时就被拒绝了。。后者的拒绝信（由斯坦利·E·布拉德利主编）已被列入诺贝尔奖，并因此获得了永久的认可。该工作随后在JCI上发表，但仅在商定省略标题中的“胰岛素抗体”之后才发表。今天的RIA有许多后来发明的竞争者免疫测定策略，这些策略不依赖于放射性同位素及其伴随的行李。这篇社论向Dr. Berson和Yalow的工作及其对分析化学的影响。几乎每期当前的分析化学至少包含一篇论文，该论文利用高度特异性的抗体-抗原相互作用作为测量成果的一部分。本社论还旨在观察出版过程。我要特别注意布拉德利编辑的信中的“数据无法证明的教条性结论”这一短语。我的编辑同事和我在提交稿件的评论中看到这种评论者语言的次数是多少！我们多少次接受了这样的审稿人声明是致命的，并拉下了拒绝杠杆（通常是！）。这是一个至关重要的问题；科学进步的基础依赖于事实的研究“做出结论，这是数据保证”。如果他们不同意，那么高质量的期刊不应该同意出版。编辑们希望审稿人在评估出版适合性时考虑这个基本层面！然后，编辑人员如何避免在处理手稿时出现与当前思想相反但可能非常重要的错误？我相信，没有其他人可以代替编辑者本身就是一个非常称职的学者，并且对分析化学领域的基本租户有所了解。在编辑者选择和依赖的审稿人中寻求相同的品质是无可替代的。还需要在编辑人员的桌子上保持科学兴奋的能力-激动地看到一本散发着原始思想并提出真正新实验的手稿，并花一些额外的时间考虑一下。这样的时刻让我印象深刻。我和其他编辑一样，我的目标是将最具影响力的新测量科学收集到以下内容的页面中（尽管现在可能是电子的）分析化学。我们很高兴能被宣布其发现与RIA一样重要的开创性论文所挑战。本文尚未被其他出版物引用。