Compelled Disclosure of Scientific Research Data

Federal legislation requires that research produced with federal funding be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. I raise a concern that this power might be used to harass scientists. The goal of data sharing, however, is important, and should be facilitated through electronic data archiving.

[1]  M J Gardner,et al.  An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. , 1990, JAMA.

[2]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Scientific Collaborations at a Distance , 2001, Science.

[3]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[4]  D. Hailey,et al.  Scientific harassment by pharmaceutical companies: time to stop. , 2000, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[5]  D. Rubin.  Meta-Analysis: Literature Synthesis or Effect-Size Surface Estimation? , 1992 .

[6]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. , 2002, JAMA.

[7]  D. Guston.  Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Reseach , 2000 .

[8]  D. Zinberg.  A Cautionary Tale , 1996, Science.

[9]  M. Polanyi.  The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory , 1962 .

[10]  S E Fienberg,et al.  Sharing statistical data in the biomedical and health sciences: ethical, institutional, legal, and professional dimensions. , 1994, Annual review of public health.

[11]  F. Bisby.  The quiet revolution: biodiversity informatics and the internet. , 2000, Science.

[12]  Barbara B. Crabb.  Judicially Compelled Disclosure of Researchers’ Data: A Judge’s View , 1996 .

[13]  J Rees,et al.  Intellectual property , 2001, The Lancet.

[14]  P. Fischer.  Science and Subpoenas: When do the Courts Become Instruments of Manipulation? , 1996 .

[15]  Francesc Esteva,et al.  Editorial , 1932, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[16]  Eliot Marshall.  Epidemiologists Wary of Opening Up Their Data , 2000, Science.

[17]  E. C. Wiggins,et al.  Researcher’s Reactions to Compelled Disclosure of Scientific Information , 1996 .

[18]  A Solution to Concerns Over Public Access to Scientific Data , 1999, Science.

[19]  N. Vogelzang,et al.  A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials. A report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. , 1993, JAMA.

[20]  Alexander S. Szalay,et al.  The world-wide telescope , 2001, CACM.

[21]  M. Polanyi.  The Republic of science , 1962 .

[22]  Hilts Pj.  Company tried to bar report that H.I.V. vaccine failed. , 2000 .

[23]  P. Hilts.  Company tried to bar report that H.I.V. vaccine failed. , 2000, The New York times on the Web.

[24]  J. Kahn,et al.  Evaluation of HIV-1 immunogen, an immunologic modifier, administered to patients infected with HIV having 300 to 549 x 10(6)/L CD4 cell counts: A randomized controlled trial. , 2000, JAMA.

[25]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  Telecommunications Board,et al.  National Collaboratories: Applying Information Technology for Scientific Research , 1993 .

[27]  D. Rennie,et al.  Thyroid storm. , 1997, JAMA.

[28]  L. Seymour,et al.  High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a randomized trial. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[29]  D J Hutchon,et al.  Publishing raw data and real time statistical analysis on e-journals , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  H. Welch,et al.  Presumed benefit: lessons from the American experience with marrow transplantation for breast cancer , 2002, British medical journal.

[31]  K. Fleming,et al.  Long-term safety and effectiveness of iron-chelation therapy with deferiprone for thalassemia major. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  M. Shapiro,et al.  The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. Results of the FDA program. , 1989, JAMA.

[33]  S. Fienberg,et al.  Sharing research data , 1985 .

[34]  B. Black.  Research and its Revelation: When Should Courts Compel Disclosure , 1996 .

[35]  J. Habermas.  Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action , 1990 .

[36]  J. Hoey,et al.  Constraints of interest: lessons at the Hospital for Sick Children. , 1998, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[37]  S. Benhabib.  In the Shadow of Aristotle and Hegel : Communicative Ethics and Current Controversies in Practical Philosophy in Hermeneutics in Ethics and Social Theory. , 1989 .

[38]  L. Loevinger.  Science on trial , 1993, Nature.

[39]  Neuroimaging Databases , 2001, Science.

[40]  R. Theriault,et al.  High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study , 2000, The Lancet.

[41]  L. Hood,et al.  Publication Rights in the Era of Open Data Release Policies , 2000, Science.

[42]  D. Guston.  David Guston ’ s Between Politics and Science : Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research * , 2000 .

[43]  D. Parrish,et al.  US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. , 2002, JAMA.

[44]  George Davey Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Beyond the grand mean? , 1997, BMJ.