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

Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
SOC said:
QMUL should be ashamed of itself.
Click to expand...
Just a technicality, I think this statement was released by Kings College London, who appear to be the go-to institute for this particular study (perhaps because its the affiliation of the first author McCrone?).
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Esther12 said:
That letter seemed wilfully appalling.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the lawyers involved forgot they were working with science. The PACE authors told the legal eagles that they don't want to release the data and don't like Coyne, so the lawyers produced a business or political argument that they don't realize simply won't wash in the scientific world.

Even Goldacre can't condone QMUL's KCL's response. There is simply no scientific basis in anything they said in the refusal. Any scientist, and certainly any published researcher, has to be appalled by the attitude of the PACE authors and QMUL KCL. Some, and Goldacre will likely be among them, will stay silent on the matter but they can't agree with it and call themselves legitimate scientists.

I like "willfully appalling". :D That's a pretty good description of all those involved on QMUL's that side -- they're choosing to be appalling. Although why one would choose to be appalling (unless one is a pre-teen boy :p) , I cannot imagine. (Not that I know why so many pre-teen boys choose be be appalling, either, but it seems to go with the territory ;))
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Woolie said:
Just a technicality, I think this statement was released by Kings College London, who appear to be the go-to institute for this particular study (perhaps because its the affiliation of the first author McCrone?).
Click to expand...
Sorry, my mistake. :oops: So how is QMUL involved? Too many organizations mixed up in this mess. :depressed:
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
The university considers that this request has caused... distress to staff.
Click to expand...
Just reread the response and the laughability of this particular bit leapt out at me. The request, in and of itself, caused distress to the staff? o_O Just by asking for the data, something the authors agreed to when they published, Coyne distressed their staff? Aww...... poor babies! They sure have some delicate sensibilities for grown scientists, don't they? "Mommy, Jimmy asked for my data!" [sob, whimper]

These people have some serious psychological issues if simply asking for the data distresses them. They need to take some time off and deal with that before they have a mental breakdown. I mean, someone might ask them to... oh, I dunno, go to a conference or something. I bet that would be even more distressing than a simple request for data they have and already agreed to release.

Does CBT work for irrational fear of performing normal professional responsibilities? How about paranoia?
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
TiredSam said:
At that link you can read how he eggs his followers on, saying the following:



So in 2006 he's fantasizing about leading a bunch of vociferous militants ... Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe it.

I don't suppose he sent any death-threats while he was at it perchance?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, he's one of those bully-types that can dish it out but can't take it. It's fine for him to do it to others, but when it happens to him or his, suddenly it's inappropriate behavior and he's whining about how badly he's being treated. :rolleyes: Big on the double standard, is Goldacre... and the rest of his cronies at Whichever University (I have now completely lost track of which universities are involved and who is connected to which one :confused:)
 
D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,568
SOC said:
Sorry, my mistake. :oops: So how is QMUL involved? Too many organizations mixed up in this mess. :depressed:
Click to expand...
Most previous FOI requests have been to QMUL as the chief principal investigator for the trial is there.
However, this relates to the cost effectiveness paper and that paper was led by Paul McCrone of KCL.
 
Last edited:
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
I don't see any way for this to be resolved but for the data to eventually see the light of day,...
Click to expand...
The only possible acceptable outcome.

The active campaign to discredit the project...
Click to expand...
No, it is a completely legitimate and necessary campaign to point out how the project discredited itself.

...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...
Whether legitimate or not can only be determined by the data. Which nobody else is allowed to see.

Just by asking for the data, something the authors agreed to when they published,
Click to expand...
This needs to be repeated at every opportunity. They are breaking the rules, conditions, and commitments that they freely signed up to in order to get approval and funding. This may well have legal as well as scientific and moral implications.
 
Last edited:
Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
There are now numerous (very good) comments following James Coyne's on PLOS One.
http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=87726

e.g.:
PLOS policy is clear on this. The authors must share the data. It will allow their stated claims to be reasonably assessed for accuracy. This is not about discrediting a paper, it is about scientific process. Unless there is something wrong with the paper, unless the data does not support the authors claims, then there should be no anxiety over sharing the data. I can't understand the heavy resistance.

The authors benefited from the reputation of PLOS by publishing in their journal, now they want to show PLOS up by completely ignoring their agreement? I wait to see what PLOS think about that. From my point of view I wonder how I can trust this paper if no one is allowed to see the data it is based on. I am sure PLOS will not allow this to go unchallenged as to do so would leave people wondering how many other PLOS papers are suspect.

I also don't understand why QMUL in their reply to James Coyne have made reference to a FOI request that was nothing to do with him. It also seems very selective to highlight that particular FOI request when another more recent one has been upheld by the ICO in favour of the requester (currently under appeal by QMUL).
Click to expand...

One in particular is from alem-matthees who submited the FOI the university refered to in their response to JC.
As Tuller, Coyne, and others have noted elsewhere, accusations of campaigns of harassment appear to arise whenever legitimate questions are asked about the trial.
Click to expand...
It is not harassment to express legitimate concerns about research e.g. major deviations from a published trial protocol, ask sincere questions, disagree with the interpretation of research(ers), highlight factual errors, or be somewhat frank when it is called for. These are all legitimate activities and scrutiny is part of science. It is unclear how disclosing details about methodology could discredit any trial if it was conducted and reported properly. Ben Goldacre's (co-founder of AllTrials) compare-trials.org project expects details about the timing and nature of changes to protocols to be routinely disclosed.
Click to expand...



 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Let me point out that what really discredits the institutions and researchers is secrecy, failure to provide data, obfuscation, dubious claims of vexatious complaints, and ad hominem attacks. Its all easily resolved with publication of the data. There is almost no good reason to not publish unless there is something to hide. The fastest way to demonstrate there is nothing to hide is to publish the data.
 
Keela Too

Keela Too

Sally Burch
Messages
900
Location
N.Ireland
alex3619 said:
Let me point out that what really discredits the institutions and researchers is secrecy, failure to provide data, obfuscation, dubious claims of vexatious complaints, and ad hominem attacks. Its all easily resolved with publication of the data. There is almost no good reason to not publish unless there is something to hide. The fastest way to demonstrate there is nothing to hide is to publish the data.
Click to expand...

YES! Everything else is bluster!
 
Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Sean said:
According to PLoS this paper has been cited 10 times. I wonder who is doing the citing of this and other PACE papers?

http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=87726
Click to expand...

If you click on "citations" just under 10, you get to that page http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040808#citedHeader
where you can have a lot of information about the reception of the paper and to other papers that cite it: http://www.scopus.com/results/cited...=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=0
 
Countrygirl

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,670
Location
UK
An interesting comment by Alem Matthees who presented the FAOI mentioned in the rejection response that Dr Coyne received yesterday: -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22870204#cm22870204_13300

Alem Matthees2015 Dec 11 10:38 p.m. (10 hours ago)edited 1 of 1 people found this helpful

With reference to James C Coyne's comment about KCL rejecting his request for trial data as 'vexatious':

There are crucial facts and context missing from QMUL's (and now KCL's in part) narrative of anti-science harassment against the PACE trial. They appear to conflate all significant criticism with harassment without any regard for the validity of the comments made.

In addition to James Coyne PhD, other senior academics and research scientists have also expressed significant concerns over how the trial was conducted, analysed, or reported. Their assessments are outlined in a series of articles written by David Tuller PhD (lecturer in journalism and public health at UC Berkeley) see http://www.virology.ws/mecfs/ . Six of them wrote an open letter to the editor of the Lancet, outlined some main problems and called for a fully independent re-analysis of the results. Similarly, over 11,000 individuals signed a petition calling for the retraction of questionable claims (made in relation to the 'normal range' for fatigue and physical function that overlapped with trial entry criteria for severe disabling fatigue), and called for the release of de-identified individual-level trial data so other researchers can re-analyse the results, seehttp://my.meaction.net/petitions/pace-trial-needs-review-now . As Tuller, Coyne, and others have noted elsewhere, accusations of campaigns of harassment appear to arise whenever legitimate questions are asked about the trial.

As the person who submitted the FOIA request in ICO decision notice FS50558352, I wish to comment. It had absolutely nothing to do with James Coyne. It was my own attempt to clarify confusion about the timing and nature of changes to the PACE trial recovery criteria, which had reached the level of parliamentary debate in the UK House of Lords in 2013, but has not been conclusively resolved. The revised recovery criteria is asserted to be pre-specified but there is good evidence that it is post-hoc and unapproved. I provided QMUL with background about how the confusion arose and then asked specific questions to conclusively resolve the matter.

QMUL presented to the ICO a detailed narrative of harassment and argued that any disclosure under the FOIA is unnecessary as they have procedures for review and dissemination. The ICO accepted QMUL's arguments about feeling harassed, deferred to their authority and judgement, focused on subjective interpretations of tone and circumstances, but did not consider the justifications for the request or the evidence that the procedures for review and dissemination were inadequate in this case. The evidence justifying the request in the first place was deemed outside the scope of the investigation simply because it involved details about the PACE trial. S.14(1) is supposed to account for the justifications for a request in order to judge whether the level of alleged disruption or annoyance caused by the request is justified. With all due respect to the ICO in general (and not to diminish my appreciation for their unequivocal support for my other request), it is difficult to successfully argue that a request or any burden it places on a public authority is justified when the evidence which justifies it is precluded out of the investigation.

Therefore in my opinion, the consideration of evidence was imbalanced, and the ICO staff involved with that particular case were misled by a one-sided presentation of the evidence. QMUL's threshold for examples of harassment apparently includes moderated BMJ Rapid Responses and published letters to the editor etc, without any regard for the validity of the points made in the correspondence. The BMJ encourages patient involvement and does not publish responses it deems inappropriate. It appears that QMUL view all significant criticism of the PACE trial to be a form of harassment simply because they dislike or disagree with it.

It is not harassment to express legitimate concerns about research e.g. major deviations from a published trial protocol, ask sincere questions, disagree with the interpretation of research(ers), highlight factual errors, or be somewhat frank when it is called for. These are all legitimate activities and scrutiny is part of science. It is unclear how disclosing details about methodology could discredit any trial if it was conducted and reported properly. Ben Goldacre's (co-founder of AllTrials) compare-trials.org project expects details about the timing and nature of changes to protocols to be routinely disclosed.

QMUL have misguided assumptions about my beliefs and motives. I maintain that they have no convincing evidence that I intended to harass them instead of seek information to resolve an ongoing confusion and controversy in the patient community. My FOIA request was not perfect, but it is all online so people can judge for themselves whether it was unreasonable given the relevant circumstances of a possible post-hoc analysis being described as pre-specified : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/timing_of_changes_to_pace_trial .
Click to expand...

PermalinkShare
 
jimells

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
SOC said:
Sorry, my mistake. :oops: So how is QMUL involved? Too many organizations mixed up in this mess. :depressed:
Click to expand...

Involving as many institutions and researchers as possible is a clever tactic. Since "Everybody" is guilty, "Nobody" is guilty, so nobody will suffer the consequences, except patients of course, but who cares about those bums anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back