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

W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
#201
Messages
2,051
Likes
10,097
SOC said:
Is this intended to be the stereotypical British understatement? :D The rest of the world is outraged, is feeling blood boil, and is using words like ridicuous and dangerous. He finds it worrying.

It's good to see a UK science writer weighing in. There's a lot of promise for improvement in the media approach to the PACE study there. Fingers crossed this guy has the moxie to follow up professionally.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't get your hopes up. The responses to that Tweet have basically been, "Oh it's alright, It's only CFS"
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
#202
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,401
elliepeabody said:
One thing I have wondered about all this is how securely the raw data is stored. Are there likely to be backups at different sites? There isn't the danger that an inconvenient flood, fire, criminal damage or data hack would render the data forever inaccessible? Or am I being paranoid?
Click to expand...
They're delaying the inevitable for a reason. At this point we can only guess at that reason. Losing or altering the data is a possibility. Another is that they're hoping against hope that this will all blow over if they drag it out long enough. A third possibility is that they're just that arrogant they think all they have to do is refuse and everyone will bow down to their superior judgement.

My money is currently on some type of data manipulation -- loss, selecting which data to release to minimize the damage, etc. I'd be more than happy to change my mind if they release all the data in a form that appears to be intact. They could simply be stupid and arrogant rather than outright corrupt.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
#206
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,401
Now the vicious anti-ME lie-spreading trolls are out there desperately peddling to try and stay ahead of a groundswell of opposition to what they and the PACE authors have been doing. "I'm all for good science, but not when it goes against my personal prejudices."

My prediction -- they will be overrun. I don't feel sorry for them.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
#212
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,401
Valentijn said:
I'm actually pretty surprised by the broad range of academics who seem very shocked and upset about the refusal to share the PLOS data, without knowing anything about ME/CFS or even caring what it is :p
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised. :) From their pov, this has absolutely nothing to do with ME/CFS. It's about the integrity of scientific research itself. The claims of KCL approach an insult to respectable scientists everywhere. Any research scientist who is not appalled by this raises questions about his/her own scientific integrity. I can't think of an equivalent situation is another field, but I can assure you that the PACE authors' attitude and KCL's response is antithecal to scientific research and as such is shocking to researchers everywhere. Someone should have pointed that out to the KCL legal department before they issued that astonishingly clueless response. I'm glad they didn't, though. As it stands, it was guaranteed to raise an uproar in scientific circles.

Big mistake, PACE crew. Now the non-BPS, non-psychology, researchers all over the world who otherwise wouldn't have given a rat's ass about ME/CFS are going to be looking askance at all the related ME/CFS BPS research. We couldn't have done better ourselves. :thumbsup:
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
#213
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,401
Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
#214
Messages
3,263
Likes
14,530
SOC said:
Does anyone recognize the researchers that have come out against the absurd refusal so far?
Click to expand...
I recognise Brian Nosek. He is a huge name in Psychology, and his recent interests are in the scientific process e.g., replication reproducibility and data sharing. He is the director of the Center for Open Science (yes, you read that correctly!)

I also recognise Chris Chambers, also huge, is a cognitive neuroscientist (neuroimaging, etc) but has written extensively on poor psychological research, and also Daniel Lakens, also interested in scientific reproducibility and improving statistical reporting practices.

Brain Nosek: University of Virginia, also Center for Open Science
Chris Chambers: University of Cardiff, Wales
Daniel Lakens: Eindhoven University, The Netherlands

There is huge interest in these questions in Experimental Psychology. Its like a movement.
 
A.B.

A.B.

Senior Member
#215
Messages
3,780
Likes
23,086
I hope the PACE authors will try to defend their position publicly to prevent the retraction of the paper. It's only going to make things worse for them by attracting even more attention.

Sharpe is probably not sleeping well after realizing his offensive comments set all this in motion.
 
Last edited:
R

rosamary

Senior Member
#216
Messages
131
Likes
398
SOC said:
They're delaying the inevitable for a reason. At this point we can only guess at that reason. Losing or altering the data is a possibility. Another is that they're hoping against hope that this will all blow over if they drag it out long enough. A third possibility is that they're just that arrogant they think all they have to do is refuse and everyone will bow down to their superior judgement.
Click to expand...

Could it be to do with this:

' The Commission will review the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) to consider whether there is an appropriate public interest balance between transparency, accountability and the need for sensitive information to have robust protection, and whether the operation of the Act adequately recognises the need for a ‘safe space’ for policy development and implementation and frank advice. The Commission may also consider the balance between the need to maintain public access to information, and the burden of the Act on public authorities, and whether change is needed to moderate that while maintaining public access to information.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/freedom-of-information-new-commission
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
#218
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,401
rosamary said:
Could it be to do with this:

' The Commission will review the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) to consider whether there is an appropriate public interest balance between transparency, accountability and the need for sensitive information to have robust protection, and whether the operation of the Act adequately recognises the need for a ‘safe space’ for policy development and implementation and frank advice. The Commission may also consider the balance between the need to maintain public access to information, and the burden of the Act on public authorities, and whether change is needed to moderate that while maintaining public access to information.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/freedom-of-information-new-commission
Click to expand...
BS This is not sensitive government information. This is data behind published scientific research. Apples and oranges.

Of course, that's what they're trying, but I imagine it will fly like a ton of bricks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.