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

W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
""The university considers that there is a lack of value or serious purpose to your request. The university also considers that there is improper motive behind the request. The university considers that this request has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff.
"The university considers that the motive and purpose behind this request is polemical. The university notes the view of the Information Commissioner in decision FS50558352 that the request in that case was ‘more focussed on attacking and attempting to discredit the trial than in obtaining useful information on the topic."
Click to expand...
This really is extraordinary. Now they're accusing other scientists of being "vexatious". They know full well what the "serious purpose" of it is, it's to investigate work that they don't want anyone to see. What possible "serious distress" could this cause to staff, unless they've got something to hide?
A.B. said:
I think they will just label these questions as vexatious, or cite the retraction as evidence for the powerful irrational ME militant terrorist organisation.
Click to expand...
And A.B. wins the prize!
 
Last edited:
Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Here's what King's College London said in response to Coyne's request:
KCL said:
The university considers that there is a lack of value or serious purpose to your request. The university also considers that there is improper motive behind the request. The university considers that this request has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff. The university considers that the motive and purpose behind this request is polemical. The university notes the view of the Information Commissioner in decision FS50558352 that the request in that case was ‘more focussed on attacking and attempting to discredit the trial than in obtaining useful information on the topic.’
Click to expand...
Here's how Coyne responded:
James Coyne said:
I believe this response is a blatant rejection of the authors' responsibility to share data when requested. The paper should be provisionally retracted until the data are shared.
Click to expand...

Edit: Oh, woops, someone beat me to it!
 
A.B.

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Woolie said:
Full letter from Kings College London to Coyne is available here.
Click to expand...

The sheer arrogance:
We would expect any replication of data to be carried out by a trained Health Economist.
Click to expand...

Translation: Coyne is unqualified.
The active campaign to discredit the project has caused distress to the university’s researchers who hold legitimate concerns that they will be subject to public criticism and reputational damage.
Click to expand...

Translation: nobody should be allowed to criticise us.
 
S

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
KCL said:
The active campaign to discredit the project
Click to expand...

It's the study authors who have discredited their own project, with a threshold for recovery of physical function that's at the mean level of Class II congestive heart failure patients. KCL need to open their eyes.

has caused distress to the university’s researchers
Click to expand...

Then they should have done better research and when they failed to, should have let independent researchers have access to the data. The only distress has been caused by them stonewalling legitimate enquiry.

who hold legitimate concerns that they will be subject to public criticism and reputational damage.
Click to expand...

Too late! That's already happened. Over 11,000 people have signed a petition calling for their misleading claims to be retracted. And they've brought this entirely on themselves by the worst piece of "science" I've ever seen.

What a twisted load of nonsense.
 
snowathlete

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Location
UK
The irony of ironies is that if this is a campaign, and I think it has only become one in a sort of organic way because so many people don't trust their claims and their hiding of the data, then it's a campaign created entirely by the PACE universities by continually refusing to allow normal scientific scrutiny of their data.

I don't see any way for this to be resolved but for the data to eventually see the light of day, and the fact they are fighting so so hard to keep that from happening, even making all kinds of outrageous slurs against people, suggests that the data will show they have misled people with their claims.
 
A

Aurator

Senior Member
Messages
625
Their response is the perfect complement to PACE itself: contemptible in its contempt for the truth, for science, and ultimately for the personal dignity of the authors responsible. It's a shameless diatribe, which, in spite of its best efforts, does no harm at all to the reputation of Professor Coyne, of patients or of patient-advocates, but only harms still further the already damaged reputation of a group of academics who are unworthy of the roles and titles they've been given and the trust that people in all stations of life have placed in them.

They are accountable, and one day will be held to account, however hard they resist legitimate efforts to let the facts speak for themselves.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
With lots of PACE stuff I end up thinking "it's so bad it's good".

I think that responses like this have to harm their credibility with the sort of people who would normally bend over backward to give the benefit of the doubt to researchers over angry CFS patients.

They've backed themselves into a corner with their spinning of results though. Coming clean is not going to be an easy way out for them.
 
Last edited:
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
The university also considers that there is improper motive behind the request.
Click to expand...
What a coincidence! I consider there's an improper motive behind their refusal. :p

Seriously though, they get to decide what someone else's motive is, and act on that? o_O Judge, jury, and executioner kind of thing?

Coyne's request was completely legit. It's too freaking bad they don't like their perception of his motives. That shouldn't alter the fact that by publishing in PLOS, they agreed to release the data. The rules don't say, "You must release the data upon request unless you decide the motive of the requester is improper." Sheesh.

The university considers that this request has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff.
Click to expand...
Speaking as a published researcher, I can say in full confidence that releasing data cannot cause distress to the study authors unless the data has been deliberately falsified or falsely reported. Okay, I suppose if the work is just extremely poor without intent to mislead, the authors could be subject to embarrassment, which would be distressing in a way. But that is certainly no excuse for not releasing the data.

Good research stands up to scrutiny. Poor research may collapse under scrutiny, but that's the way science works. You're not supposed to say, "No, you can't look because I'm embarrassed at the quality of my work." You're supposed to suck it up and deal with the consequences of your actions.

What a bunch of whining babies! Grow up and act like real scientists. If releasing your data is going to distress you, well, put on your big boy or girl panties and face the truth. You made the mess, now you are going to have to deal with it.

This whole thing is incredibly shocking... from the appalling misinterpretation of the data that we can see to the refusal to release the data while giving ridiculous and whiney excuses. QMUL should be ashamed of itself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back