Science magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) -- or is it the American Association for the Advancement of Secret Science?
In the November 6 issue of Science, reporter Jocelyn Kaiser writes about the recently enacted law mandating public access to scientific data collected courtesy of tax dollars. But Kaiser's article is decidedly negative on the new law:
- The article calls the law an "unwelcome message" for academic researchers. But why? Because federally-funded, Wizard of Oz-type researchers will no longer be able to hide behind their version of what our data says?
- The article says ominously "scientists... might have to turn over the contents of their computer disks of data, or even their lab notebooks, in response to a request to the agency that funded their work." [Emphasis added.] "Their?" Excuse me. If taxpayers paid for those materials, taxpayers are entitled to examine them, too -- especially if those materials will be used to impose further regulatory costs on taxpayers.
- The deputy director of extramural research at the National Institutes of Health is quoted as saying: "We're all very troubled." Why? What have these researchers got to hide? Shouldn't scientists be proud of their work? Shouldn't they be eager to share their data in hopes of having others validate their findings? That is the scientific method isn't it?
- The article says "Some observers are outraged that this sweeping measure was passed with no hearings." The article quotes Rep. George Brown, ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee as saying "It is ironic that a provision described as a sunshine provision needed to be tucked into a 4000-page bill in the dead of night." Welcome to Washington Mr. Brown. First day in Congress? Rep. Brown was among the 333 House members to vote for the bill containing the data access provision (H.R. 4328). "Dead of night?" There was discussion of the provision on the Senate floor. "Hearings?" If hearings were held on every provision of every bill introduced, Congress would still be debating Civil War-era legislation. Brown would have liked a hearing so he could demagogue and, ultimately, kill the data access provision. Who's trying to hide what?
- New York University researcher George Thurston is quoted as saying "If past history is any indication, vested interests will misuse [this provision] to discredit valid research results they don't like and to harass the researchers doing the work." Right. It's much better to allow Thurston and his comrades-in-junk science to take our money, produce secret science that will cost us billions of dollars annually, and then refuse to allow us to see the data.
- The article says "Others worry that raw data will be requested before it has been analyzed and peer reviewed." This is yet another dodge. First the purpose of the law is ensure that scientific results can be checked. The purpose is not to impede scientific research. Second, scientific data, especially epidemiologic data, is rarely, if ever, peer-reviewed before publication. Typically, only the actual, to-be-published reports are peer reviewed -- and often even the quality of that is questionable.
- The article says "University researchers say that privacy and proprietary data might also be compromised." Nope. A 1985 National Academy of Sciences report titled "Sharing Research Data" has already acknowledged these concerns and concluded they can be readily addressed. For example, subject identities can be concealed and use of the data can be expressly limited.
Kaiser's article does a fine, one-sided job of scaring the public about the new law. It is sad that a journalist of perhaps the most prestigious science journal doesn't know that data sharing is a fundamental part of science.
Ask the editors at Science if they share Kaiser's views. If so, perhaps the American Association for the Advancement of Science should rethink its name.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.
Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.