|
SciFri |
|
|
Last week's topic: secrecy in science. We asked whether or not the public had a right to see all data produced by federally-funded research. Here's what some of you had to say... I think we should, unless the study needs an "unknown" to remain unknown for scientific purposes i.e. a control group etc. Otherwise we should see it if we're paying for it. Its only right. Bryon T. Rodriguez Of course! How else do we keep our government and our scientists accountable? What good is discovering something useful then keeping it unused? Besides all that, it's not like the person who discovers something is the only one who can figure out ways to use it. Mike Pica. I would imagine that any science project funded by the government has terms and conditions that are specified by a contract or some other similar requirement in which access to the data should be specified. If the government wants access to all the data, then that should be spelled out in those requirements, with a corresponding payment for the value of the data. Data which is gathered and analyzed for one purpose will often be valuable for other projects and purposes, or may be sensitive for a variety of reasons. I do not believe the data should automatically be government property just because the project was government funded. The scientists or institution that did the work should be able to share, sell, study, or withold the data as they see fit, unless the access to the data was previously specified by the contractual arrangements which produced the work. Of course, peer acceptance of the results will be colored by these factors; this is only appropriate. Whether or not the public or other institutions can get access to data which does belong to the government after such work is completed should be up to the government entities involved and the chain of command up through the ranks, even to the President. There are many good reasons why raw data might be withheld, from protection of peoples' privacy, national security or because the study was faulty (it is not desirable to disseminate erroneous info.) Freedom of the Press does not imply that all data should be made available at reporters' requests, only that they have the right to publish what they can find out by their own efforts. In addition, the public has no intrinsic right to see government data any more than I should be able to get your income tax returns or know the combinations needed to launch nuclear-armed missles. In summary, the short answer is No, we do not have the right to see all of a government-funded scientist's data. The long answer is that "our" (the public's or the government's) rights to data should be a function of the specifications of the study and conditions of its funding. Elston Wyatt, San Diego I think one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the 'record status' of the data. If these data are now subject to the FOIA they become, in effect, federal records and the property of the U.S. government. This makes the research data subject to the provisions of the Federal Records Act and all the attendant provisions associated with it, including permanent preservation in the National Archives, if the Archivist determines that the records have long-term historical value. Ted Hull Both sides of this issue have valid points to argue. I would lean more towards the side of keeping the findings in the hands of the scientist. This would keep the incentive in tact to develop products and deeper research. I believe it would be short sited to make public someones work before they have fully developed it.
Federally funded means, tax payer funded. If I am paying for it, I should be able to see the results. Paul T. Sindelar Gee. My first thought is, except where confidentiality of subjects may be involved (as in, say, psychological research), why shouldn't, insofar as it's feasible, _all_ of a scientist's data be available for public inspection—if there's anyone who really wants to muck his way through it!? Tim Walton I do believe all findings discovered through scientific research is proprietary. In the case of government funded research, the proprietor is the American public. If it involves findings which could be a potential threat to national security, there are laws governing all information of that nature. Phillip L. Harley Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recently wrote a book entitled "Secrecy" [Yale University Press 1998]. He quotes Loard Acton who said: "Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; noting is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." Moynihan himself says "Secrecy is for losers." I think taxpayers should have access to the information under FOIA. As Senator Shelby's aid argues, there are many, many FOIA exemptions. If not FOIA then what? As an attorney active in public interest law, I've found FOIA and state sunshine laws are avoided when the government farms out the work to independent contractors who are not compelled to disclose their raw data because they aren't covered by those laws. Shawn Newman I do not believe that it is necessary, or feasable to relenquish ALL of the data that currently comes out of laboratories and reaserch organizations. There would be far too much information to publish, and how would you go about making available all of the different types of data that are produced ? I believe that only the data that has been concluded and is relevant to the public should be made available. Vince Hoffmann With the exception of specific names, addresses, etc., I think overall we would be better informed if we had access to scientific studies. There are far too many so-called secrets now which probably leads to much mischief and confusion. The public would be able to make judgments as to the validity of certain studies if they knew who conducted them, what the purpose of the study was, how many like studies were done previously (probably, too many) and if the results can be utilized for the public good. I hope this law also penetrates such citadels as the National Physician's Information Bank in Washington, DC so we can judge who the good physicians are...likewise with all consumer medical information. Who knows, maybe people would stop complaining about all the taxes they paid if they feltthey were getting something good for their money! Dolores Cirelli As a scientist working in basic research, a problem that most basic scientists are afraid of is that raw or preliminary data would be accessible to other scientists (both academic and private sector) that you are competing with. These individuals would be able to gain access to your data which may give them an advantage on obtaining future grants, redirecting their research along lines that they are not currently pursuing, and/or provide critical information that may allow for filing of patents. The current climate of competition for federal grants is very intense. Providing information to a laboratory that is larger or more pretegious may allow your ideas or finds to be taken from you before you are able to establish a track record to allow funding of a new or novel idea. Dennis E. Coyle Once a study is complete and results have been published there is no reason that data should not be available to anyone. I'm sure that there are complications, but in general, I think that this is a great idea. Peter Wlodarski | |
|
The Science Friday® Web site is a production of ScienCentral, Inc. Executive web producer: Ira Flatow Web producer: Charles Bergquist |