Controversies are inevitable in all scholarly pursuits, and scientific inquiry is no exception. Rapidly growing areas, in particular, breed controversy. Controversial topics attract attention, and consequently, fields can take advantage of this attention and ultimately thrive on differences of opinion. They become vehicles for advancing scientific growth.
In both theoretical and experimental arenas, differences in opinion more often than not result from application of fundamentally different approaches to addressing hypotheses. There are as many ways of tackling scientific questions as there are available approaches, and rapid technological advances ensure swift expansion of these approaches. Such diverse means of addressing experimental questions act as prisms to focus, reflect, and reveal unique facets that then are interpreted and synthesized into cogent models. Predictably, these likely can generate different observations and interpretations, leading to diametrically opposed models that nucleate and fuel scientific controversies. Here is the point where productive discussion can catalyse refinement, and perhaps even reconciliation of polarized viewpoints. Suffice it to say dialogue is necessary for progress. In principle, oral discussions at scientific meetings afford opportunities to settle differences in opinion, but in practice, even incremental steps toward resolution of controversies through these forums are rare. If productive discussion cannot be held in the same place and at the same time, then perhaps the best route is via the published word.
Enter, CrossTalk debates.
In June 2012, the combined vision of The Journal of Physiology’s founding Senior CrossTalk Editor, Jerome Dempsey, and then Editor‐in‐Chief, David Paterson, resulted in the inception of CrossTalk debates. Testifying to the power of their common vision, at the time of writing, 37 CrossTalk debates continue to provoke and inspire, many well after publication of invited comments from the readership. CrossTalks now are led by Francisco (Pancho) Sepúlveda, who continues the tradition of bringing together opposing views in its now‐established tradition of spirited, civilized and respectful discussion. By providing two (or potentially more!) sides of a current, controversial topic, CrossTalks aim to cultivate understanding of how these opinions arose, thereby empowering readers to form informed conclusions. One additional, implicit outcome of CrossTalk debates is their potential to catalyse progress toward re‐focusing and/or resolution of opposing positions by meeting them at their conceptual crossroads.
The choreography of CrossTalk debates is straightforward. To summarize briefly, a controversial topic is identified and the participants engaged. The participants agree on the wording of the topic, usually taking the form of a declarative ‘does/does not’ statement. The proponent and opponent sides submit pithy, initial arguments in support of their positions, then address the opposition's respective statements in succinct, written rebuttals. The entire set of four articles is published simultaneously, with a Call for Comments from the readership, as well as author‐identified candidates. In the spirit of promoting ready exchange, The Journal of Physiology makes all CrossTalk content freely available.
Responses to a Call for Comments are accepted for 6 weeks after first publication of the CrossTalk, and are moderated generally by a CrossTalk editor. The process thereby brings all participants to the table, with fresh input from the readership further informing synthesis of a Last Word from the Authors. Comments from the readership and the Last Word documents are published together on‐line as a supplementary file.
As simple as this process seems, ample persuasive talent must be harnessed to ensure the process runs smoothly from start to finish. Indeed, an interesting phenomenon is a sudden marked reticence of historically vocal, potential participants when presented with the opportunity to commit their convictions in print. The effect is reproducible between different experimental subject populations, being noted by different CrossTalk editors covering multiple and distinct subject areas. Thus, more hopes are dashed at the onset of planning CrossTalk debates than possibly the number of grant proposal submissions required before being scored. I should point out that CrossTalk editors are persistent.
Aside from the immediate goals of fuelling productive discussion between established research groups, what ‘value‐added’ results have CrossTalk debates yielded? The answer lies in the collective future of our discipline: the young people. In addition to inspiring refinement of future research studies, CrossTalk debates also are valued as tools for cultivating critical evaluation skills in students. Indeed, scientist–educators often personally express their appreciation for CrossTalks as excellent resources for teaching graduate‐level classes. Similarly, students mention the usefulness of CrossTalk debates in journal club settings, as vehicles for engagement and for fuelling discussion. In what better way can progress be made than through leading the next generation of scientists by example?
One final point: acknowledging that physiology is an immense discipline, and that The Journal of Physiology aims to foster communication of important mechanistic principles spanning the full breadth of physiology, CrossTalk debates rely on active input from the readership. The CrossTalk editors – Pancho Sepúlveda, Derek Bowie and the author – invite you to help us identify controversial topics that, with further debate, can be advanced past crossroads and perhaps even refocused on a common road.
Further information about CrossTalk debates can be found at:
https://jp.msubmit.net/cgi-bin/main.plex?form_type=display_requirements#crosstalk
Archived CrossTalks can be accessed at:
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/14697793/features/cross-talk-debates
Edited by: Kim Barrett & Francisco Sepúlveda