Coyne - What it takes for Queen Mary to declare a request for scientific data “vexatious”

[worldbackwards]

New from JC (as his close personal friends get to call him )

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

http://linkis.com/wordpress.com/j1IMj

 

[TiredSam]

Great that he's on the case.

 

[worldbackwards]

Interesting...

I have my own Freedom of Information Act request submitted and under review...But this time it is a different matter. I’m asking for data that must be made available as a condition for publishing in PLOS One. If my request is not granted, I will publicly seek to have the article retracted. Is that “vexatious”?

Make my day, Queen Mary University and PACE investigators.

I've been thinking about all this since I listened to Coyne's Edinburgh talk. The friendly dispute that grew up there was between Coyne saying that this kind of self-promotion was fairly standard in positive psychology vs patients who felt that there was something different about the ME debate, that there seemed to be a particular shroud thrown over this that it was considered altogether more unseemly to lift. Central to Coyne's point of view was that QMUL would now have to release the data because people like him and Keith Laws had kicked up a fuss and could not be ignored like patients had been. But they didn't.

I think that Coyne sees some of the issues more clearly than the patient community, especially those concerning broader medical politics. But as he goes forth into this, it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to find that his standard tactics don't work here, that there is a far broader coalition squatting on this issue than is usual. Indeed he already is.

I only hope he can get to the bottom of it all and hold them to account. But he's certainly showing a fine display of good faith with his continued blogging and the like and is spot on here.

 

[A.B.]

Let's see whether they prefer having their article retracted or having the data published. I don't think they can talk their way out of it this time.

 

[Cheshire]

Some people have more ethics:

Self Correction
What to do when you realize your publication is fatally flawed

By Kerry Grens | December 1, 2015

Ultimately, Ronald retracted both papers, one from PLOS ONE and another from Science. As word got around about how forthcoming she was—in her talk at the conference and in alerting the journals to the problems—she began to receive pats on the back. The blog Retraction Watch applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing,” and researchers echoed the sentiment, saying it must have been a tough decision. “On the one hand I was really very flattered I got that reaction from people, but [I was] also a little bit puzzled,” Ronald says. “I never thought there was a choice.”

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44594/title/Self-Correction/

 

[snowathlete]

So grateful to Coyne for bringing this to light. Hope others get involved. Shocking behaviour from QMUL.

 

[TiredSam]

Some people have more ethics:



http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44594/title/Self-Correction/

A good read, although that article is about what to do when you discover an honest mistake after your paper is published. What the PACE authors really need is guidance on how to behave ethically when your dishonest mistakes are exposed.

 

[Keith Laws]

Interesting...

I've been thinking about all this since I listened to Coyne's Edinburgh talk. The friendly dispute that grew up there was between Coyne saying that this kind of self-promotion was fairly standard in positive psychology vs patients who felt that there was something different about the ME debate, that there seemed to be a particular shroud thrown over this that it was considered altogether more unseemly to lift. Central to Coyne's point of view was that QMUL would now have to release the data because people like him and Keith Laws had kicked up a fuss and could not be ignored like patients had been. But they didn't.

I think that Coyne sees some of the issues more clearly than the patient community, especially those concerning broader medical politics. But as he goes forth into this, it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to find that his standard tactics don't work here, that there is a far broader coalition squatting on this issue than is usual. Indeed he already is.

I only hope he can get to the bottom of it all and hold them to account. But he's certainly showing a fine display of good faith with his continued blogging and the like and is spot on here.

'Science' sometimes operates like two boxers standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out .... everybody gets injured, everyone gets tired and only occasionally is a knockout blow landed. Such bouts inevitably attract an audience and to some extent, to gain ascendancy you must convince them (not your opponent). As the Philosopher of Science Imre Lakatos once said "If even in science there is no other way of judging a theory but by assessing the number, faith and vocal energy of its supporters, then this must be even more so in the social sciences: truth lies in power". Sometimes, of course, the referee is 'owned' by one of the boxers - usually he is on the side of 'normal' science i.e. he favours the reigning champion. The only way to make progress in such arenas is to put your head down and go the distance, hoping to influence the audience, eliminate the referee's bias and win on points.... but it is never over quickly!

 

[Valentijn]

. . . there was something different about the ME debate, that there seemed to be a particular shroud thrown over this that it was considered altogether more unseemly to lift.

... Queen Mary hasn't been shaving?

 

[worldbackwards]

... Queen Mary hasn't been shaving?

They haven't wiped properly.

'Science' sometimes operates like two boxers standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out ....

And Keith Laws quotes my post.

 

[A.B.]

After some reflection, I think they will prefer the retraction over the release of the data. If they release the data, and it shows what I think it will show, then the PACE house of cards and whole treatment approach is threatened. In comparison, a retraction is the lesser evil.

But it's hard to predict their behaviour when so many factors are unknown.

The good news is that regardless of the outcome, we make some progress. Refusal to publish data will motivate critics and strengthen their position in the legal process.

 

[worldbackwards]

In comparison, a retraction is the lesser evil.

But they'd have to explain why. In what universe could they possibly claim that they'd rather have their paper retracted without a fight than back up their argument with data?

 

[A.B.]

But they'd have to explain why. In what universe could they possibly claim that they'd rather have their paper retracted without a fight than back up their argument with data?

I think they will just label these questions as vexatious, or cite the retraction as evidence for the powerful irrational ME militant terrorist organisation.

 

[Valentijn]

In what universe could they possibly claim that they'd rather have their paper retracted without a fight than back up their argument with data?

In the world where they continue to stick their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALALA-VEXATIOUS-VEXATIOUS-LALALALA-HARASSMENT-LALALALA-VEXATIOUS!"

Their behavior has been so bizarre and secretive for so long that they probably now view it as normal. They can't comprehend how abnormal it looks to everyone else.

 

[TiredSam]

I think they will just label these questions as vexatious, or cite the retraction as evidence for the powerful irrational ME militant terrorist organisation.

I was about to write the same, but for them to admit that they'd rather give in to bullying than stand up in the name of science, that would be a huge whopper even by their standards.

 

[Cheshire]

In the world where they continue to stick their fingers in their ears while yelling, "LALALALALALA-VEXATIOUS-VEXATIOUS-LALALALA-HARASSMENT-LALALALA-VEXATIOUS!"

Their behavior has been so bizarre and secretive for so long that they probably now view it as normal. They can't comprehend how abnormal it looks to everyone else.

They've been behaving like capricious and tyranic children that bully others and go to weep in their mother's harms, and always achieve to get what they want. They were used to receive rewards for this attitude, and don't understand why now some people seem to dislike their little drama.

 

[worldbackwards]

I think they will just label these questions as vexatious, or cite the retraction as evidence for the powerful irrational ME militant terrorist organisation.

Perhaps you're right, there's a narrative to be made where they can play the victim here. But it would still be hugely damaging.

Coyne isn't a patient: he'd make damn sure that everyone saw their retreat and that it was on the basis of refusing to supply data that they had already signed up to provide, and to a respected scientist who holds a responsible position for the same organisation. It would be clear to a lot more observers than usual that it was an indefensible political move.

But perhaps this is the point: Coyne has backed them into a corner. Pussyfooting around the turd in the middle of the room is all they have left.

 

[A.B.]

Perhaps you're right, there's a narrative to be made where they can play the victim here. But it would still be hugely damaging.

Coyne isn't a patient: he'd make damn sure that everyone saw their retreat and that it was on the basis of refusing to supply data that they had already signed up to provide, and to a respected scientist who holds a responsible position for the same organisation. It would be clear to a lot more observers than usual that it was an indefensible political move.

Yes, Coyne is a new factor and it will be interesting to see how they respond to it. Perhaps the militants have now learned hypnosis?

They might just try to ignore and forget about it. Like they do with research that contradicts their favorite narrative.

It's like chess, and they now have to give up a piece as there are no good moves.

 

[snowathlete]

Even if they retracted the paper, they would still be under obligations to release the data I should imagine. It wouldn't change the fact that it was a publicly funded study, data was collected and exists and the public are legally allowed to have it. Retracting their dodgy conclusions wouldn't change that fact.

Instead, they will continue to stall as much as they are allowed and to fight the release of the data and they don't care that it is unethical and unscientific. They have gone to extreme lengths before to avoid data being released so I expect them to continue trying to hinder transparency any way they can.

 

[user9876]

'Science' sometimes operates like two boxers standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out .... everybody gets injured, everyone gets tired and only occasionally is a knockout blow landed. Such bouts inevitably attract an audience and to some extent, to gain ascendancy you must convince them (not your opponent).

One of the problems with PACE is they refusing to slug it out they're refusing to enter the ring instead just sing 'la la la were right' (not quite a The The song!). If they had have listened to early criticism or if the trial steering committee had challenged them on methodology and protocol changes they might have had a much better trial. For them though the downside would probably be the trial wouldn't back the treatments they believe it. But sometimes we need to give up on ideas that don't work and move on - the quicker we move on the quicker we can explore other new ideas.

The question is how do we get the data so we can have a discussion about what the data says and what it doesn't say with respect to these treatments.