Tweet
There are many reasons to share biomedical research data. Sharing data
reinforces open scientific inquiry, encourages diversity of analysis and
opinion, promotes new research, makes possible the testing of new or
alternative hypotheses and methods of analysis, supports studies on data
collection methods and measurement, facilitates the education of new
researchers, enables the exploration of topics not envisioned by the
initial investigators, and permits the creation of new data sets when data
from multiple sources are combined. From an international point of view,
data sharing favour international collaborations and allow researchers from
less developed countries to leverage on the intellectual abilities without
being impaired by the lack of equipment required for data collection. With
reference to Europe it clearly promotes the creation of the European
Research Area so dear to the European Commission.
Although most research policy makers agree with these statements, still
most of the research data produced with taxpayers' money are not widely
available. When data sharing is left to the voluntary initiative of the
single researcher there are various reasons that make difficult data
sharing. Research data are seen as a competitive advantage over other
research groups, they may provide business opportunities, they can be
exchanged with other favours, etc. In addition sharing data takes time and
dedication, and the rewards tend asymptotically to zero. Frequently
sharing data also costs money, costs that are difficult to motivate to our
institutions. Thus, I guess we should not be surprised if research data are
not shared so frequently.
Would it be better if research-founding agencies, impose that all data
produced with their money are made public?
Do not think this is a weird idea. I recently read that in 1998 the USA
Congress discussed an amendment usually known as the Shelby Amendment,
which proposed to make data from federally founded academic research
available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand
that the amendment's implementation narrowed very much the original
intention, but still the direction seems very much the same. More
recently, the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) March 1 2002
requested comments from the research community on its proposed data sharing
guidance. NIH policy will require all applicants for research awards to
submit a data-sharing plan with their applications. The agency notes that
such policy ensures openness in science, strengthens scientific inquiry and
criticism, promotes new research or alternative approaches, and even
improves efficiency in spending limited research funds (e.g., by
eliminating duplication of effort in data collection).
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/
In Europe there are rumours that the advisory groups of the European
Commission are considering similar directions.
How should we react to these impositions? Should we lobby against them?
Even if we agree with the idea of sharing research data we may not like
that we are forced to do so.
Or should we embrace these constraints, as they are for the good of science?
Other related questions: would it be legitimate to ask for an access fee,
so to recover the costs of keep the data repositories up and running?
Would this sharing prevent the industrial-commercial use, through
copyrights, patents, or other mechanisms to protect the intellectual
property rights? Who should maintain the data repositories running, and
how long the data should be kept available?
The paper is open for discussion!
Regards
Marco
--------------------------------------------------
MARCO VICECONTI, PhD (viceconti@tecno.ior.it)
Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica tel. 39-051-6366865
Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli fax. 39-051-6366863
via di barbiano 1/10, 40136 - Bologna, Italy
Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright in the forest of the night,
what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?
--------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here do not necessarly reflect those of my employer
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------
reinforces open scientific inquiry, encourages diversity of analysis and
opinion, promotes new research, makes possible the testing of new or
alternative hypotheses and methods of analysis, supports studies on data
collection methods and measurement, facilitates the education of new
researchers, enables the exploration of topics not envisioned by the
initial investigators, and permits the creation of new data sets when data
from multiple sources are combined. From an international point of view,
data sharing favour international collaborations and allow researchers from
less developed countries to leverage on the intellectual abilities without
being impaired by the lack of equipment required for data collection. With
reference to Europe it clearly promotes the creation of the European
Research Area so dear to the European Commission.
Although most research policy makers agree with these statements, still
most of the research data produced with taxpayers' money are not widely
available. When data sharing is left to the voluntary initiative of the
single researcher there are various reasons that make difficult data
sharing. Research data are seen as a competitive advantage over other
research groups, they may provide business opportunities, they can be
exchanged with other favours, etc. In addition sharing data takes time and
dedication, and the rewards tend asymptotically to zero. Frequently
sharing data also costs money, costs that are difficult to motivate to our
institutions. Thus, I guess we should not be surprised if research data are
not shared so frequently.
Would it be better if research-founding agencies, impose that all data
produced with their money are made public?
Do not think this is a weird idea. I recently read that in 1998 the USA
Congress discussed an amendment usually known as the Shelby Amendment,
which proposed to make data from federally founded academic research
available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand
that the amendment's implementation narrowed very much the original
intention, but still the direction seems very much the same. More
recently, the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) March 1 2002
requested comments from the research community on its proposed data sharing
guidance. NIH policy will require all applicants for research awards to
submit a data-sharing plan with their applications. The agency notes that
such policy ensures openness in science, strengthens scientific inquiry and
criticism, promotes new research or alternative approaches, and even
improves efficiency in spending limited research funds (e.g., by
eliminating duplication of effort in data collection).
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/
In Europe there are rumours that the advisory groups of the European
Commission are considering similar directions.
How should we react to these impositions? Should we lobby against them?
Even if we agree with the idea of sharing research data we may not like
that we are forced to do so.
Or should we embrace these constraints, as they are for the good of science?
Other related questions: would it be legitimate to ask for an access fee,
so to recover the costs of keep the data repositories up and running?
Would this sharing prevent the industrial-commercial use, through
copyrights, patents, or other mechanisms to protect the intellectual
property rights? Who should maintain the data repositories running, and
how long the data should be kept available?
The paper is open for discussion!
Regards
Marco
--------------------------------------------------
MARCO VICECONTI, PhD (viceconti@tecno.ior.it)
Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica tel. 39-051-6366865
Istituti Ortopedici Rizzoli fax. 39-051-6366863
via di barbiano 1/10, 40136 - Bologna, Italy
Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright in the forest of the night,
what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?
--------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed here do not necessarly reflect those of my employer
---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send SIGNOFF BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@nic.surfnet.nl
For information and archives: http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l
---------------------------------------------------------------