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

S

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
Retraction Watch:

King’s College London doesn’t want to release data to James Coyne from a study of chronic fatigue syndrome. See if the absurd reasons make your blood boil as much as ours: “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.” And here’s more from someone else who submitted a related request data.
Click to expand...

http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/...iew-work-collaborations-dark-side/#more-35215
 
Large Donner

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
This lobbying to try to exempt scientific data being exempt from FOI requests, especially on the grounds that further study is being done, is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

No one should be permitted to continue further study on originally unproven claims due to withholding of data from an original paper.

That's just turning the scientific process which is supposed to be self correcting into an endless game of Chinese whispers.

One has to also realise in the UK if you haven't signed out of having all your medical information being shared with endless recipients including research based projects and insurance companies they wont even need your permission to make claims about your illness by recruiting you for studies in the future.

This was recently out on hold for 6 months due to public concern but it seems its going to happen if certain people get there way.

Its no coincidence that Wessely loves this idea and has been on BBC radio pushing the "benefits" of it very recently.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
The PACE authors sure shot themselves in the foot by bringing themselves to the attention of the broader scientific world with their absurd excuses for refusing to release scientific data. As long as they were just whining among themselves and deriding patient concerns, they were safe. Publicly thumbing their noses at fundamentals of scientific research and integrity was a BIG mistake.
 
Last edited:
B

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Sidereal said:
Retraction Watch:
Click to expand...
http://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/...es-peer-review-work-collaborations-dark-side/
Click to expand...

Just to make sure everyone noticed what Retraction Watch said:
"See if the absurd reasons make your blood boil as much as ours..."
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Large Donner said:
This lobbying to try to exempt scientific data being exempt from FOI requests, especially on the grounds that further study is being done, is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

No one should be permitted to continue further study on originally unproven claims due to withholding of data from an original paper.
Click to expand...

Its very disrespectful to patients who have allowed themselves to be experimented on and academics are fighting for the right to delay the usefulness of data until they have squeezed every possible paper they can out of the data. In the case of PACE I think they finished collecting the 2.5 year follow up data in april 2011 yet it has taken them till October 2015 (4 1/2 years) to publish the data. The are still hanging on to the original data refusing to share.

They should not be allowed to get away with such abuse of the trust that patients put in them to do the right thing. Yet they have still not released the protocol defined outcomes. They successfully lobbied MPs to change the FoI act so that they can hang on to data years after the trial finishes (but there is a public interest clause).
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
SOC said:
The PACE authors sure shot themselves in the foot by bringing themselves to the attention of the broader scientific world with their absurd excuses for refusing to release scientific data. As long as they were just whining among themselves and deriding patient concerns, they were safe. Publicly thumbing their noses at fundamentals of scientific research and integrity was a BIG mistake.
Click to expand...
It is particularly satisfying to see them being torn apart by their own, ie academics, scientific researchers, and a fellow psychologist. I use the term "their own" loosely, because of course the PACE researchers were never really scientific researchers, and as academics and psychologists are a total disgrace. They have been complete imposters for years, and now that they are revealing their contempt for science to the scientific community they are getting the reaction they deserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back