• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

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

SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
TiredSam said:
It is particularly satisfying to see them being torn apart by their own, ie academics, scientific researchers, and a fellow psychologist.
Click to expand...
Does anyone recognize the researchers that have come out against the absurd refusal so far? How many are from the UK? Do we have any faculty of their own universities speaking out yet? Those academics should have the most invested in their universities not damaging their reputations with this anti-science attitude. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a strong internal battle at QMUL and KCL as science faculty demand their universities don't destroy them with this nonsense.
 
B

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Edit: Oh, ignore this post, i misread adreno's statement as a question.

adreno said:
It's Coyne putting pressure on PLOS.
Click to expand...
Coyne is a PLoS editor, so I'm sure that they are having discussions.

Coyne said:
Note: I am an Academic Editor at PLOS One. However, these opinions are entirely my own and they are not based on a consultation with other editors or the journal’s administration. Presumably my request for a retraction would be processed like anyone else’s request, with an appropriate due process and set of checks and balances that protect the integrity of the journal and the rights of all parties involved, including the larger scientific community.

https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...lare-a-request-for-scientific-data-vexatious/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Not seen any QMUL/KCL researchers expressing concern yet. Some big open data people are though.

(Maybe QMUL/KCL haven't got a culture which encourages researchers with integrity to stay?)
 
DanME

DanME

Senior Member
Messages
289
Cannot believe, this is happing. Finally, their vexatious behaviour is exposed to the academic world. I think the PACE team has made a big mistake by accusing a respected scientist of improper motives or by arguing that criticising studies is unacceptable behaviour, which could stress scientists. It's just a joke, being criticised is part of your job buddies and you signed up for it. Otherwise you misunderstood your job entirely.

There is a huge difference between attacking weak and small patients groups and attacking well connected and respected scientists.
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Large Donner said:
Oh to be a fly on the wall at the SMC offices tonight.
Click to expand...
Any guesses about which way the SMC is going to jump on this one? They, too, painted themselves into a corner with their almost hysterical support of the PACE (and related) studies. KCL has now put the SMC in the position of either coming down against basic scientific research principles or accepting egg on its face for having persistently reported extremely poor research in glowing terms. Neither is a place the SMC is going to like standing.

One possibility -- play the wide-eyed innocent and pretend they were completely taken in by people they had every reason to trust. This ignores the fact that, 1) they're supposed to be guardians of proper science reporting and so should have been looking out for such obvious abuses as this, and 2) they were warned repeatedly that there is something not right about this research and they chose to defend it vociferously anyway. Still, that might be the best option they have -- deflect responsibility and play the victim.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Bob said:
Imagine government ministers or civil servants declining FOI requests for publicly funded data, on the basis that the data might inconvenience, embarrass or discredit them, and so they consider the request to be harassment.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that essentially the defence the government put up for prince charles but the courts didn't agree and that went to the highest court
 
Last edited:
W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Bob said:
Oh, was it. I didn't follow that story? Were they saying that ministers would be embarrassed or that Charles would be embarrassed?
Click to expand...
Grieve detailed the letters as containing "...remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality....my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king."[18]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos
 
Kati

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
SOC said:
Any guesses about which way the SMC is going to jump on this one? They, too, painted themselves into a corner with their almost hysterical support of the PACE (and related) studies. KCL has now put the SMC in the position of either coming down against basic scientific research principles or accepting egg on its face for having persistently reported extremely poor research in glowing terms. Neither is a place the SMC is going to like standing.

One possibility -- play the wide-eyed innocent and pretend they were completely taken in by people they had every reason to trust. This ignores the fact that, 1) they're supposed to be guardians of proper science reporting and so should have been looking out for such obvious abuses as this, and 2) they were warned repeatedly that there is something not right about this research and they chose to defend it vociferously anyway. Still, that might be the best option they have -- deflect responsibility and play the victim.
Click to expand...
They will claim scientist abuse and probably death threats
 
elliepeabody

elliepeabody

Messages
86
Location
East of England
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?
 
SOC

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Bob said:
Journalist:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675636151064141824
Click to expand...
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.
 
V

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
worldbackwards said:
Hey look, it's our old friend Frozen Warnings, breaking the irony barrier in response to this tweet:

Presumably referring to Gez Blair there. Or lying, as we might say.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it looks like Etchells isn't biting:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675640232507793408
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675641600593260545

I also added my two cents:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675767436193497089

Not going to push it though. He needs to look at the data and decide for himself. And he seems interested in doing that, which is wonderful in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.