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

Countrygirl

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,670
Location
UK
Here's some interesting reading.

E-mails from the SMC and Peter White seeking to lobby MPs to ensure that research is excluded from FAOI requests.

No wonder they are dragging their heels!


http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/140606-annex1-pdf/

(From page 28 onwards)



From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Fiona Fox 31 October 2013 16:41 Fiona Fox FW: Letter Fol letter final.docx

Hi Folks Those of you who, like the SMC, are worried about the malicious use of FOI against researchers may like to see this and use it in your own efforts. I have just been briefed about^^^^H^FOIing a number of universities about their primate research ~^|^ s a convicted animal rights extremist!!! Surely this was never the intent of FOIII Cheers Fiona

From: Sent: 28 October 2013 19:26 To: Cc: Fiona .Fox (fionaPsciencemediacentre.oro'i Subject: FW: Letter

Dear all. As you can read, QMUL are lobbying MPs to get a good FOIA exemption passed into law that properiy defends research. Please use this as a basis for asking your own Universities and other likely lobbyists to get in touch with their own or your own friendly MPs. Best wishes, Peter University of London Fax:+44-(e)2e.7882_284S Mile End Road E-mail:| London El 4NS UK To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 2- greatandgood+unsubscribe(@sciencemediacentre.org. 28

Dear XXX, The Intellectual Property bill currently going through Pariiament includes a proposed exemption for current researcii from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act requests and would prevent the premature release of data in academic research. We very much welcome this necessary exempfion as we believe that it will do much to avoid the significant risks to academic freedom presented under the current prepublication exempfion of the Act. We also believe that it will help ensure the ability and willingness of researchers to engage in free inquiry into important areas of research.

We are writing to you because we are concerned that the bill as it stands may not fully clarify when the exemption from requests applies. In many cases, a research project proceeds via a series of publications, rather than one alone, progressively investigating and reporting outcomes. This, for example, is the case with the P/VCE Trial, an important study into the safety and efficacy of various treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in which QMUL researchers have participated for the last 10 years. Here there have been separate papers, published according to a defined research and publicafion strategy, that have addressed, or will address in sequence the main results of the effectiveness and safety of the treatments, their costeffectiveness, long-term follow-up and the mediators of the treatments to explain how they work.

It is not immediately clear from the bill as it stands whether information from such a continuing series of publjcafions within a given research project would fall within the exemption beyond the first publication, since it may be argued that a "report of the research" has already been published under the present wording of proposed Section 20. We would therefore suggest the following slight change to clarify "the programme" and "publication... of a report": "the programme is continuing with a view to the publication, by a public authority or any other person, of a report of the research that either includes the requested data or the analysed results thereof." We hope that you will raise this issue in Pariiament so that the bill may be ensured to have its intended and necessary effect. With best regards XXXX
Click to expand...
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
I said in another thread that a personal attack against James Coyne was due. He is now being labelled as vexatious, having improper motives, and polemical (although it's funny how polemicists are ok if their name is Max Pemberton). How pathetic that a personal attack is all they've got. But also quite encouraging really.

And what on earth kind of language is this:

In conclusion, the university considers that when applying a holistic approach, this request can properly be considered to be vexatious.
Click to expand...

"applying a holistic approach"? I can't imagine any lawyer drafting a sentence like that. That letter reads like something cobbled together by a committee of of increasingly panic-stricken amateurs. Also quite encouraging.
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Countrygirl said:
We are writing to you because we are concerned that the bill as it stands may not fully clarify when the exemption from requests applies. In many cases, a research project proceeds via a series of publications, rather than one alone, progressively investigating and reporting outcomes
Click to expand...
Very clever. There is an exception for current research, which sounds fair enough, maybe researchers shouldn't have to reveal their data until they've been able to publish something themselves.

So how to create a loophole that will allow you to refuse to share data following publication? Claim that your research is still ongoing because you plan to publish a follow-up paper, or series of papers, then schedule a follow-up study for 10 years in the future. The follow-up study could be something as useless as say, oh I don't know, the recent PACE follow-up study - doesn't really matter what's in it, as its primary purpose is to allow you to claim an exception under the FOIA and not share your data.
 
S

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
Countrygirl said:
We are writing to you because we are concerned that the bill as it stands may not fully clarify when the exemption from requests applies. In many cases, a research project proceeds via a series of publications, rather than one alone, progressively investigating and reporting outcomes. This, for example, is the case with the P/VCE Trial, an important study into the safety and efficacy of various treatments for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in which QMUL researchers have participated for the last 10 years. Here there have been separate papers, published according to a defined research and publicafion strategy, that have addressed, or will address in sequence the main results of the effectiveness and safety of the treatments, their costeffectiveness, long-term follow-up and the mediators of the treatments to explain how they work.

It is not immediately clear from the bill as it stands whether information from such a continuing series of publjcafions within a given research project would fall within the exemption beyond the first publication, since it may be argued that a "report of the research" has already been published under the present wording of proposed Section 20. We would therefore suggest the following slight change to clarify "the programme" and "publication... of a report": "the programme is continuing with a view to the publication, by a public authority or any other person, of a report of the research that either includes the requested data or the analysed results thereof." We hope that you will raise this issue in Pariiament so that the bill may be ensured to have its intended and necessary effect. With best regards XXXX
Click to expand...

This would essentially block all research FOI requests since a research group could technically continue to churn out papers from one project for a decade or more. You can always find more meaningless post-hoc dumpster diving analyses to do in a large dataset, it can go on forever. If this amendment passes, researchers in the UK will be able to prevent the release of data essentially indefinitely.

It is no coincidence that PACE investigators are publishing these follow-up papers at a snail's pace. The data for the 2.5 year follow-up were collected in 2011. Took them 4 years to publish it. Where is the 5 year follow-up? I guess we can look forward to it in 2018.
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Did they process this request under the FOI in the end? If so their reasons for refusal seem to border on illegal to me. They cannot and are not allowed to refuse information on the grounds of second guessing what the info would be used for or if someone is "worthy" of possessing such information or would know what to do with it or whose attention to bring it to. I'm pretty sure the FOI act guards against such vexatious and prejudice refusals.

Its public information that should be freely available. You simply cannot have a public body appointing themselves above the Act and proclaiming which member of the public is more worthy than another to be in possession of information. I dont even think giving a reason is necessary when making a FOI request.

This is like claiming that they should also be immune from peer review incase someone unqualified in their eyes took the information and tried to replicate the study or use the info for educational terms.

It's just amazing that they are refusing to release info on a scientific trial because they are worried about the reputation of the study investigators.

Surely if that was the case they should just release the information to show that the data supports the claims made in the paper.

They are making treatment and cost effectiveness claims and refusing to release the supporting data from a publicly funded trial, for goodness sake. Where do they get of on this crap.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Sidereal said:
You know, it really makes you wonder what's going on with this dataset that what would be so damaging to their reputations if it got out in the open. The Establishment is moving mountains to block the release of these data.
Click to expand...
It is particularly telling that they are willing to damage both the researchers' and the universities' reputations by not releasing the data. As anyone can see by the landslide of researcher criticism that is already beginning, these refusals on the grounds given are completely unacceptable in the scientific world and highly suspicious. That the universities in question would consider the damage done to their academic repuations by not releasing the data lesser than that done by releasing the data is very telling. The contents of the data may be even more shocking than we thought, which is saying a lot. ;)

I think they may be learning a hard lesson -- you can mess with a very weak patient group and get away with it, but you can't mess with the scientific world forever. It has more teeth... and some claws.
 
G

Gijs

Senior Member
Messages
711
I totally agree with you SOC and Sidereal. Research funded by public money should be transparent. It is very strange behavior of these researchers. But, what else can you expect from these so-called scientists. It is behavior of a thief who has something to hide. Real scientists who say they were committed with this terrible disease would never do this.
 
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
jimells said:
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?
Click to expand...
Exactly how it has been done in the case of ME/CFS. Every significant institution has been (deliberately) dragged into the psycho-social fairytale and hence has been tainted by it, and so they all have a reason to defend it, or at least ignore criticism of it.

Wessely in particular is a master exploiter of this tactic.

We will know it is all over when the politicians start openly disowning them and running for cover.

Large Donner said:
It's just amazing that they are refusing to release info on a scientific trial because they are worried about the reputation of the study investigators.

Surely if that was the case they should just release the information to show that the data supports the claims made in the paper.
Click to expand...
Same situation with the objective results, including the failure to collect actometer data at outcome.
If the objective data had supported their claims they would have been screaming it from the rooftops. And if they really believed in their model and treatment they would be bending over backwards to show that by any and all objective means, such as actometers.

But they did neither. Which means they got nothing solid to back their claim.
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
Of course they are terrified of releasing the data. They know how much damage even a small group of vexatious researchers with improper motives and links to media polomicists can do, armed with unfounded claims based on a dodgy trial. They must be terrified at the prospect of how much damage a very large group of patients, supported by an increasing number of respected scientists and journalists, can do armed with thoroughly justified claims based on accurate and transparent interpretation of the data. Their reputations and careers are at stake, they have little to lose by carrying on in such ridiculous fashion. I hope they are sh*tting themselves.
 
moosie

moosie

Messages
85
TiredSam said:
Very clever. There is an exception for current research, which sounds fair enough, maybe researchers shouldn't have to reveal their data until they've been able to publish something themselves.

So how to create a loophole that will allow you to refuse to share data following publication? Claim that your research is still ongoing because you plan to publish a follow-up paper, or series of papers, then schedule a follow-up study for 10 years in the future. The follow-up study could be something as useless as say, oh I don't know, the recent PACE follow-up study - doesn't really matter what's in it, as its primary purpose is to allow you to claim an exception under the FOIA and not share your data.
Click to expand...

Oh I wish you hadn't said that out loud :)
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
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 representational damage.
Click to expand...

So when lots of people are dubious of something its deemed reason for refusal on the grounds that it could damage the researchers reputation and an "active campaign" is bad by default?

Have they heard of the term scientific consensus, or is that just something that the establishment use to claim, "all credible professionals believe this", when it suits them.

"We are the gods none shall question".

Information is information it cannot be withheld on presumption of use or ability to interpret.

This is democracy is reverse.
 
V

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
This is amazing. Academics with thousands of followers are tweeting about PACE to condemn the investigators' and King's College's refusal to release the data.

It's like watching Coyne start up again for the first time, but on an even bigger scale :woot: It really is overwhelming!
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back