User:Ed Poor/data withholding

You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Scientific data withholding is conduct contrary to the advance of science and a violation of the policies of research funding agencies and science journals. After publishing in a journal, the science community expects an author to share any supplemental information (raw data, statistical methods or source code) necessary to audit or reproduce his research. Because withholding data is contrary to the scientific method, textbooks describe it as unscientific or pseudoscience.

It is common for data and methods to be requested from authors years after publication. In order to encourage data sharing and prevent the loss or corruption of data, research funding agencies and science journals established policies on data archiving. Despite the policies on archiving, data withholding still happens today. Authors may fail to archive data or they only archive a portion of the data. Failure to archive data alone is not data withholding. When a researcher requests additional info, the author sometimes refuses to provide it. When authors withhold data like this, they run the risk of losing the trust of the science community.

NIH data sharing policy
‘’The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement defines “data” as “recorded information, regardless of the form or medium on which it may be recorded, and includes writings, films, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, designs, or other graphic representations, procedural manuals, forms, diagrams, work flow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing or computer programs (software), statistical records, and other research data.”’’

The NIH Final Statement of Sharing of Research Data says: ‘’NIH reaffirms its support for the concept of data sharing. We believe that data sharing is essential for expedited translation of research results into knowledge, products, and procedures to improve human health. The NIH endorses the sharing of final research data to serve these and other important scientific goals. The NIH expects and supports the timely release and sharing of final research data from NIH-supported studies for use by other researchers.’’

‘’NIH recognizes that the investigators who collect the data have a legitimate interest in benefiting from their investment of time and effort. We have therefore revised our definition of "the timely release and sharing" to be no later than the acceptance for publication of the main findings from the final data set. NIH continues to expect that the initial investigators may benefit from first and continuing use but not from prolonged exclusive use.

NSF Policy from Grant General Conditions
36. Sharing of Findings, Data, and Other Research Products ''a. NSF …expects investigators to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages awardees to share software and inventions or otherwise act to make the innovations they embody widely useful and usable.''

b. Adjustments and, where essential, exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate legitimate interests of investigators.

Nature
''After publication, readers who encounter a persistent refusal by the authors to comply with these guidelines should contact the chief editor of the Nature journal concerned, with "materials complaint" and publication reference of the article as part of the subject line. In cases where editors are unable to resolve a complaint, the journal reserves the right to refer the correspondence to the author's funding institution and/or to publish a statement of formal correction, linked to the publication, that readers have been unable to obtain necessary materials or reagents to replicate the findings.

Science
''Materials sharing- After publication, all reasonable requests for materials must be fulfilled. A charge for time and materials involved in the transfer may be made. Science must be informed of any restrictions on sharing of materials [Materials Transfer Agreements or patents, for example] applying to materials used in the reported research. Any such restrictions should be indicated in the cover letter at the time of submission, and each individual author will be asked to reaffirm this on the Conditions of Acceptance forms that he or she executes at the time the final version of the manuscript is submitted. The nature of the restrictions should be noted in the paper. Unreasonable restrictions may preclude publication.''

Office of Research Integrity
Allegations of misconduct in medical research carry severe consequences. The United States Department of Health and Human Services established an office to oversee investigations of allegations of misconduct, including data withholding. The website defines the mission: ‘’The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) at about 4,000 institutions worldwide. ORI monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct and facilitates the responsible conduct of research (RCR) through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities.’’

Academic genetics
Withholding of data has gotten to be so commonplace in academic genetics that researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital published a journal article on the subject. The study found that “Because they were denied access to data, 28% of geneticists reported that they had been unable to confirm published research.”

Scientists in training
A study of scientists in training indicated many had already experienced data withholding. This study has given rise to the fear the future generation of scientists will not abide by the established practices.

In climate science
In 1998, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes published an article on paleoclimatology. In 2002, Scientific American named Mann one of the top 50 visionaries in science. In 2003, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick decided to audit the published findings of Mann et al and discovered a number of statistical anomalies. In November 2003, they published the first article in a series criticizing articles published by Mann et al in 1998 and 1999. In July 2004, Nature published a corrigendum in which Mann et al. redescribed some data sources; the results however were not affected This did not end the discussion. McIntyre wrote to Mann asking questions and requesting his source code. Mann refused. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation had supported Mann's right withhold the code - the code was finally turned over. It happened because Congress investigated. In June 2005, Congress required Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. Pursuant to the powers of Congress, the chairmen of the committees wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data - including his source code. When Mann complied, all of the data was available for a complete audit. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel and the National Academy of Sciences both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. .

In materials research
Jan Hendrik Schön earned his Ph.D. in physics in 1997 and soon went to work for Bell Labs. Schön won many awards, including the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002. In 2001, he announced he had produced a transistor using a thin layer of organic dye molecules. Such a development would have dramatically reduced the cost of electronics. Soon after publication, others attempted to reproduce his work and found anomalies. In 2002, Bell Labs asked a committee to investigate. The committee requested raw data from Schön and his co-authors. The data was not forthcoming. Schön claimed he kept no laboratory notebooks and that his raw data was erased from his computer because he had limited hard drive space. In September 2002, the committee issued its report and listed 24 acts of scientific misconduct. Bell Labs fired him the same day. Science withdrew eight of his papers. Other journals followed suit.

In heart research
Dr. Ram Singh, a cardiologist practicing in India, has published research in many prestigious journals including The Lancet and American Journal of Cardiology. In 1992, Singh published research on heart attack victims in BMJ, The British Medical Association's flagship journal. The study was cited more than 200 times in scientific journals and in recommendations to doctors. His research was questioned in 1994. Dr. Richard Smith, BMJ's editor, wanted to investigate and consulted a statistician named Stephan Evans. Evans said a full review could only be done if he had the raw data. Smith feared that Singh would refuse to provide raw data. However, Smith did ask for raw data on a study submitted by Singh in 1994. Eight months later a box of papers arrived. Evans statistical analysis showed Singh's work to be full of inconsistencies and errors and should be retracted. The medical journal investigation lasted for 12 years before deciding the research was probably fraudulent. The Alliance for Human Research Protection looked into the matter and recommended that journal editors must "adopt a PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT for all authors submitting clinical trial reports if they want to protect the integrity of both the journals and the scientific literature. Authors should be REQUIRED to submit ALL RAW DATA along with their research report." (emphasis in the original)

Literature

 * Gauch Jr Hugh G (2002) Scientific Method in Practice, Cambridge University Press [ISBN-13 978-0521017084]
 * Wilson F (2000) The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience, Canadian Scholars Press [ISBN 1-55130-175-X]