James Coyne's Latest, Will He, Or Won't He Get the Data?

[Never Give Up]

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...l-request-for-release-of-the-pace-trial-data/

"Administrative staff at PLOS asked me to inform them if I had any difficulties obtaining the data that I had formally requested from the authors of the PLOS article. Here is my reply-"

JC is clearly willing to call for the PLOS article to be pulled and brings up the consequences of not pulling it.

 

[TiredSam]

Well if we're having an office sweep my tip is a personal attack on James Coyne coming soon.

 

[A.B.]

Well if we're having an office sweep my tip is a personal attack on James Coyne coming soon.

But that would make them look bad, and appearance is all they have. A long list of bullshit excuses seems more likely.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Sometimes, when people find themselves in a hole, their only instinct is to dig.

"No, no, Dig up stupid!" --Homer Simpson

 

[TiredSam]

But that would make them look bad, and appearance is all they have. A long list of bullshit excuses seems more likely.

Of course I've no idea what's going to happen. I expect their "response" will fall way short of the mark, but they'll try to make it something that allows them to claim they're cooperating, and lets them call JC vexatious if he carries on pushing. One reason they might launch a personal attack is that at the moment JC is one of very few journalists interested in this, so it'll be easier to try taking him out now rather than dealing with a potentially larger pack of journalists if things start to snowball after the deadline. They're running out of time and getting desperate, it would be fun to be a fly on the wall in their war-room at the moment. Then again they might just crumble like any bully when someone who hasn't got ME stands up to them. No idea really, just watching with interest and speculating wildly.

 

[SOC]

I expect their "response" will fall way short of the mark, but they'll try to make it something that allows them to claim they're cooperating, and lets them call JC vexatious if he carries on pushing. One reason they might launch a personal attack is that at the moment JC is one of very few journalists interested in this, so it'll be easier to try taking him out now rather than dealing with a potentially larger pack of journalists if things start to snowball after the deadline.

Haven't they, or at least their supporters, already tried to label JC an "ME militant"? To which he replied something to the effect that he doesn't have a horse in the ME race, he's just concerned about the science...?

They may try, or encourage their supporters behind the scenes to try, smearing JC but I suspect they won't be as successful as they expect. With the power structure they have in place and the long list of syncophants (looking at you, Goldacre) they've developed, I suspect they think that can get away with anything if they try hard enough. I don't think they're accounting for Coyne and the lack of major influence they have on American journalists, academics, and institutions.

 

[Sasha]

Of course I've no idea what's going to happen. I expect their "response" will fall way short of the mark, but they'll try to make it something that allows them to claim they're cooperating, and lets them call JC vexatious if he carries on pushing. One reason they might launch a personal attack is that at the moment JC is one of very few journalists interested in this, so it'll be easier to try taking him out now rather than dealing with a potentially larger pack of journalists if things start to snowball after the deadline. They're running out of time and getting desperate, it would be fun to be a fly on the wall in their war-room at the moment. Then again they might just crumble like any bully when someone who hasn't got ME stands up to them. No idea really, just watching with interest and speculating wildly.

James Coyne is not a journalist. He's a professor at a university.

 

[SOC]

James Coyne is not a journalist. He's a professor at a university.

A professor of psychology, no less, so his request for release of data so that he can evaluate and/or replicate the research is 100% clean in terms of scientific merit. There is nothing vexatious about that; it's normal operating procedure. If the PACE authors won't release data to a university researcher in their own field, there's not much to be concluded other than that they are intending a cover-up of flawed or falsified data.

 

[TiredSam]

James Coyne is not a journalist. He's a professor at a university.

ok sorry, certainly didn't mean to insult him.

 

[Sasha]

ok sorry, certainly didn't mean to insult him.

Sure he wouldn't be insulted! It was just a point of info.

David Tuller, though, is both an academic (he has a doctorate in public health and is at UC Berkeley) and a journalist (writes for the New York Times, among others).

 

[biophile]

I doubt James Coyne will get the data from simply emailing a request. There may be some more formal procedure required:

I prefer the Medical Research Council’s current policy on access to research data. The council considers release only to bona fide researchers, who work for bona fide research organisations, and who sign up to the same standards of respecting the confidentiality of the data as did the original researchers.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2961/rr/645269

However it's really telling that instead of directing Coyne to such a procedure, they simply turned it into a freedom of information request which will probably be refused on grounds of patient confidentiality etc. On another thread someone posted the PLOS data sharing policy, which has always required authors to share data with other researchers, but has been updated post-PACE to require authors to provide more details on where to find the data and share it without limitations. PACE probably won't have to follow the update, but are still expected to share to researchers like Coyne. Turning down his request without further guidance on how to get the data isn't going to sit well with PLOS.

 

[SOC]

Funny how they change perspectives to avoid accountability. When a citizen asked for information on a publicly funded research project under the FOI, they say it's not a legitimate scientific request, ie not from a researcher... even though that wasn't the direction from which it was requested. It was asked as a governmental information request.

When Coyne asks for the data as a researcher under standard research policies, somehow it now becomes a political FOI request... not what he asked for. When did a researcher requesting research data become an FOI matter? Do other researchers yell, "FOI!" when asked to release their data to other researchers?

So, if someone asks for the data from a political position, the authors claim it's not a reasonable scientific request. When someone makes a reasonable scientific request for the data, they try to claim political factors must come into play. More game-playing, confusing the issue by treating political issues as scientific ones, and then turning around and treating scientific issues as political ones.

 

[Esther12]

However it's really telling that instead of directing Coyne to such a procedure, they simply turned it into a freedom of information request which will probably be refused on grounds of patient confidentiality etc. On another thread someone posted the PLOS data sharing policy, which has always required authors to share data with other researchers, but has been updated post-PACE to require authors to provide more details on where to find the data and share it without limitations. PACE probably won't have to follow the update, but are still expected to share to researchers like Coyne. Turning down his request without further guidance on how to get the data isn't going to sit well with PLOS.

When did we first hear about them treating correspondence as FOI requests? It was a long time ago. I wonder how many of the FOI requests they've complained about were questions that were not expected to be treated as FOI requests?

Even with them doing this, they've still not been able to generate an impressive total number of enquiries to complain about, or present as evidence of 'harassment'.

 

[biophile]

Even with them doing this, they've still not been able to generate an impressive total number of enquiries to complain about, or present as evidence of 'harassment'.

White complained about 168 individual requests or something, but I read around the same time that over the last 4 years since 2011 there were about 35 freedom of information requests with a total of 160 or so questions. When responding to David Tuller PACE admitted that only two requests were said to be vexatious. So years of complaining about vexatious requests destroying science boils down to only two for White?

Do other researchers yell, "FOI!" when asked to release their data to other researchers?

Wouldn't surprise me, aren't researchers generally reluctant to share data, especially if the results are weak?

 

[SOC]

Wouldn't surprise me, aren't researchers generally reluctant to share data, especially if the results are weak?

Well, I can't speak for cases where the results are weak, but I've never refused or been refused requested data unless it was classified and I legally couldn't release it. And in those cases, the research was not published in a journal, just an internal government report. In fact, there were never any difficulties or even administrators involved, much less legal departments. It was a given that all your data was freely available so that your work could be replicated by other researchers. That's basic science. If it can't be replicated, it's isn't sound. Maybe things are different in other fields.

That is another thing that puzzles me about this mess... They rattle on about how none of the biomedical research has been replicated and therefore it's not valid, much less a basis for treatment. Yet they insist that they're entitled to make it impossible to replicate their work AND that their unreplicated, unverified research justifies their treatment as the only legitimate treatment. Is that a double-standard, or what?

These guys mess with my mind, their 'logic' is so convoluted. I suppose that's exactly their intent...