FEATURE
research over the years and, in my mind,
I always plan to go back to that dataset
one day and look for other things,” Dr.
Prasad said. “I’ve learned over time that
the reality is that life sets in, you get
moved to other projects, and you just
don’t get to do those things.”
Aside from these practical factors,
proponents also argue that data sharing
can accelerate and improve scientific
discovery.
“For example, competing experts may
apply an improved statistical analysis that
finds a hidden discovery that the original
data-generators missed,” Rafael Irizarry,
PhD, professor of biostatistics at the
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard
University, told ASH Clinical News. “Furthermore, examination of data by many
experts can help correct errors missed by
the analyst of the original project.”
Michael Hoffman, PhD, a scientist at
the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and
an assistant professor at the University
of Toronto, believes the “most offensive”
aspect of the NEJM editorial is that the
authors chastise potential “research parasites” for potentially disproving original
investigators’ work. He contends that a
bedrock of science itself is the idea that
any conclusions determined by a scientist
will be under the scrutiny of other scientists in the field.
“That’s what science is all about: It’s
about putting forward ideas and testing
them with various datasets,” Dr. Hoffman
said. “That editors of NEJM do not seem to
understand this is incredibly concerning.”
So, proponents say, giving outside
scientists access to research data is a matter of advancing science. At a minimum,
researchers who conduct governmentfunded trials should be required to share
any data they gather from the process
with the public, as the trials are funded
by taxpayers.
“They are the actual owners,” Dr.
Irizarry says, “so there is an argument to
be made that the public’s data are being
held hostage.”
… And the Case Against
While many scientists and publications
advocate for open data sharing, the
path to complete data enlightenment is
not without obstacles. And, if pro–data
sharing advocates get their wish, should
they be worried about research parasites
feeding off of all that open data?
One such caveat Drs. Longo and
Drazen noted in their editorial is that
“outside researchers” (those who were
not part of the generation and collection
of data) may not fully understand the
choices the original investig