Breaking News: PLOS One issues Expression of Concern for PACE trial paper

[trishrhymes]

I wonder if we could get Davis to ask Watson to request the data. He's not exactly anti-science rabble...

I understand your point, but these scientists have better things to do with their time!

 

[Yogi]

For the record:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859859353414901762

in the comments section - I had forgot about them.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040808

 

[user9876]

he also switched between median wage cost and mean wage cost to calculate social costs in different papers.

Which for the UK is a massive change which will inflate the social costs since the mean wage is much higher than the median.

 

[Yogi]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/860122538730561537

https://johnthejack.com/2017/05/04/a-response-to-the-blog-by-puebla-and-heber-of-plos-one/

We have some great minds here on PR . Nothing is going to get past us.

Read the whole response from @JohntheJack.

“Interestingly, the ruling of the FOI Tribunal also indicated that the vote did not reflect a consensus among all committee members.”
This line is misleading and reveals either ignorance or misunderstanding of the decision in Matthees.
The Information Tribunal (IT) is not a committee. It is part of the courts system of England and Wales.

I would also add that I have never heard a court or tribunal ruling being referred to as a "vote".

 

[Valentijn]

I would also add that I have never heard a court or tribunal ruling being referred to as a "vote".

Indeed. No one gets to claim that a ruling from a court is somehow less valid merely because a minority of the judges involved disagreed. Not only is that decision 100% just as valid and binding as a unanimous one, it's just as relevant in establishing case law regarding future judgements by the court.

The PACE authors are now attempting to rewrite the entire judicial system to find a further excuse to hide their data, and QMUL is apparently happy to indulge them in it.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

Indeed. No one gets to claim that a ruling from a court is somehow less valid merely because a minority of the judges involved disagreed. Not only is that decision 100% just as valid and binding as a unanimous one, it's just as relevant in establishing case law regarding future judgements by the court.

The PACE authors are now attempting to rewrite the entire judicial system to find a further excuse to hide their data, and QMUL is apparently happy to indulge them in it.

Well they are so used to massaging away bad results ......no doubt someone in the judiciary has false lawfulness beliefs?

 

[RogerBlack]

it's just as relevant in establishing case law regarding future judgements by the court.

My understanding is that this is not correct.
The first tier tribunals decisions only applies to this particular data request..
Only if the decision was appealed to the upper tribunal, and it then decides on some part of the case, can it establish caselaw.
FTTs do not.

 

[Esther12]

My understanding is that this is not correct.
The first tier tribunals decisions only applies to this particular data request..
Only if the decision was appealed to the upper tribunal, and it then decides on some part of the case, can it establish caselaw.
FTTs do not.

The FTT case that PACE won had been repeatedly cited by the ICO.

 

[RogerBlack]

The FTT case that PACE won had been repeatedly cited by the ICO.

I suspect my comment may be technically correct, but if the ICO chooses to act as if this case sets precedent (as of course it may choose to do so), it has pretty much the same effect as if the caselaw was actually binding.
(until someone appeals a similar decision from the other side).

Much like the DWP could if they chose give reasonable access to benefit. Sometimes departments act sanely, and don't have to be forced into it by law.

 

[Valentijn]

The first tier tribunals decisions only applies to this particular data request..
Only if the decision was appealed to the upper tribunal, and it then decides on some part of the case, can it establish caselaw.

My acquaintance with English law is entirely in the context of the derivation of American law from it, but it sounds like previous decisions by a court will be binding upon that same court later in other cases. So it doesn't just provide a guideline, but rather creates a rule (or more specifically the correct interpretation of a rule) itself.

So the case is now precedent for that FOIA tribunal. Unless there are different jurisdictions for FOIA tribunals, it would set precedent for all FOIA cases, assuming there isn't a contradictory ruling at the same level or higher in the FOIA system. If there were already a contradictory ruling regarding the same issues, that would have been grounds for an appeal to a higher court. But now that the decision is in place and unappealed, it's in a very strong position.

 

[RogerBlack]

My acquaintance with English law is entirely in the context of the derivation of American law from it, but it sounds like previous decisions by a court will be binding upon that same court later in other cases.

This is not the case for the FTT.
https://www.ein.org.uk/bpg/chapter/29

29.44B This is consistent with the fact that the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, whose decisions are binding on the First-tier Tribunal. However, the First-tier Tribunal is not bound by its own decisions, so a reportable decision of the First-tier Tribunal (i.e. where an Upper Tribunal Judge is sitting as a First-tier Tribunal judge) will only have persuasive value:

However, if the body whos decisions would initially be appealed to the FTT (the ICO) treats the decision as relevant, and chooses to change their policy, they can do this. The lack of the decision being binding would only be important if the body being asked to release data following a decision of the ICO that they should chose to appeal.

 

[Valentijn]

This is not the case for the FTT.
https://www.ein.org.uk/bpg/chapter/29

That's in regards to immigration tribunals. Is there a reason to believe it would apply to every type of tribunal?

 

[RogerBlack]

That's in regards to immigration tribunals. Is there a reason to believe it would apply to every type of tribunal?

All of the first tier tribunals are under the same umbrella legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-tier_Tribunal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunals,_Courts_and_Enforcement_Act_2007

 

[TiredSam]

I put it to my learned friends that this is a persuasive precedent.

Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is related to the case at hand but is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law. However, persuasive authority may guide the judge in making the decision in the instant case. Persuasive precedent may come from a number of sources such as lower courts, "horizontal" courts, foreign courts, statements made in dicta, treatises or law reviews. In Civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.

 

[RogerBlack]

I put it to my learned friends that this is a persuasive precedent.

Certainly. It would be somewhat odd for the tribunal to not at least think about their prior decisions, even if not bound by them.

 

[leela]

I guess this might explain Crawley's recent and desperate attempt to smear Tuller's good name amongst her peers.

 

[leela]

Also, from the authors' response:
"We believe that data should be made available and have shared data from the PACE trial with other researchers previously, in line with our data sharing policy."
Referring to the policy where they refuse to share it?

 

[slysaint]

QMUL is apparently happy to indulge them in it.

Apart from the two solicitors who signed the letter........have they been replaced?

 

[user9876]

Also, from the authors' response:
"We believe that data should be made available and have shared data from the PACE trial with other researchers previously, in line with our data sharing policy."
Referring to the policy where they refuse to share it?

Their policy is new. They claimed before the tribunal to have shared with 'independent' researchers and mentioned the Cochran collaboration but when it was obvious to everyone that they helped write the protocol with Cochrane they dropped the 'independent'. As far as we know that is the only sharing. So they have shared but before their policy was written. Maybe they have subsequently shared.

We know they have not shared with academics in 4 cases and patients in more cases. I believe there was no mention of a data sharing policy in any of those 4 refusals.

 

[RogerBlack]

So they have shared but before their policy was written. Maybe they have subsequently shared.

Because of the policy 'we prefer to be involved and may occasionally not be' - it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the pace PIs would appear as co-authors on any research in which they shared data.
So, we're not looking for shared to other groups, but PACE dataset using papers published with one or more new investigators along with the old, to search for 'sharing'.