Rediscovery in science—a second eureka moment? A case in the neovascularization in cancer

Rediscoveries are not uncommon. However, sometimes they can be more significant than confirmatory or extensions of existing findings, although many authors today refer to them as discoveries in their own right. This has led to papers repeatedly rehearsing the expression “we show here for the first time…”. When a finding has opened up a whole new field of research, this is more in line with a true discovery. When particular attention is drawn to such an event by editorials in widely read journals, such as Nature, its importance is bolstered. But if it turns out to be a rediscovery, the implications are considerable and the problem has to be brought to the attention not only of those in the same field of research, but to a wider audience to put the record straight. Consequently, acknowledgment of those who made the original discovery needs to be equally well publicised. A short discussion is presented of ways we might reduce the many claims of “new” discoveries that seem to be of considerable significance but are in fact rediscoveries.