FOI vs PLoS release of data
I think there's some confusion over what James Coyne asked for (brought on by King's treating the request as an FOI). Coyne was asking for release under PLoS One rules, and those applying to that paper in 2012 aren't for full open access, I think, but are restricted to release to academics. Which is all Coyne wanted.
I think Ben Goldacre tweeted a few hours ago in support of the earlier BMJ blog regarding releasing data...
Note goldacre's proposal is not to release data but to control it and only allow 'researchers' to see the data. There is not a huge problem with making the data anonymous so why keep it secret from patients who need to make decisions and who have lost trust in large tracts of the medical profession. Feels like Goldacre doesn't really believe in openness just sharing with an a controlled group.
Why does Goldacre say he agrees with Richard Smith when Richard Smith didn't say anything about making the data inaccessible to patients? Or did I miss something?
Slight progress from Ben Goldacre that he acknowledges the data should be released (at least to some). Not sure on what basis it is justifiable to restrict it though to only academics. It's beyond silly in this day and age frankly.
Given Coyne was explicitly making a PLoS One request in his letter:
a) FOI is no defence, since the authors agreed to release the data as a condition of publication and
b) the data isn't for public use (as I understand it, though PLoS One rules now are for public release of data).
As it's not for public use, the anonymisation bit doesnt come into it, as far as I can tell (though presumably there are basic rules about not including names, dates of birth etc.)
Also, PLoS rules provide no scope for policing which academics get the data, as Ben Goldacre is suggesting should happen through YODA. I don't have a big problem with YODA, which sounds like a worthy intiative, but it's not appropriate for a PLoS data request as it's more restrictive.
In short, I think Ben's got it wrong (or is simply being unreasonable), but that the real issue in this particular case is release of the data to any researcher who wants it, not full release to the public. A separate FOI request for a fully-anonymised (and limited) set of PACE data has been approved by the Inforomation commissioner, but is being appealed by QMUL.
Let me know if I've got this wrong