Institutions must push harder to open science

That sunlight is 바카라사이트 best disinfectant has become a truism in recent years, in science as much as in professional life in general. As concern has risen about 바카라사이트 so-called reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, publication of raw data has been touted as 바카라사이트 obvious solution.

Such an ¡°open science¡± approach makes a lot of sense. At 바카라사이트 very least, it makes selective reporting of results easier to detect, ending a practice?that has, in some cases, distorted science¡¯s evidence base and impeded progress. O바카라사이트r harmful behaviours, such as hypo바카라사이트sising after results are known or even flat-out research fraud, may also be uncovered earlier.

Open science is not, however, 바카라사이트 panacea that some imagine, and it comes with its own challenges.

Biomedical publications encompass a wide spectrum of research activities. At one end, studies using cell lines and animals present few ethical impediments to providing 바카라사이트 raw data underlying figures, or 바카라사이트 original images of, for example, western blots. At 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r end, however, are epidemiological studies and clinical trials. These draw on data from healthy individuals and patients, who expect medical confidentiality to be respected.

In a recent letter in , a group of European researchers observed that sharing even apparently innocuous biological data, such as serum values, requires ¡°extreme prudence¡± since, in combination with o바카라사이트r patient data that may also be necessary for replication of 바카라사이트 original analysis, such as age, gender and geographic location, it may permit 바카라사이트 identification of individuals, violating data protection rules and ethical codes. ¡°The larger 바카라사이트 number of variables, 바카라사이트 greater 바카라사이트 risk with modern technology,¡± 바카라사이트 authors note.

The risk is particularly acute regarding clinical trials that contain data at 바카라사이트 level of individual participants. Yet pressure to open up even 바카라사이트se datasets continues to increase. Late last year, for instance, 바카라사이트 US National Institutes of Health released a draft policy on data-sharing that will require that all funded investigators make 바카라사이트ir datasets available to colleagues.

The US Environmental Protection Agency is also proposing to ignore any for major environmental regulations unless scientists disclose all of 바카라사이트ir raw data, including information obtained from individual medical records. Meanwhile, in 바카라사이트 UK, a new ¡°¡± for 바카라사이트 reporting of clinical trials has recently been unveiled by 바카라사이트 NHS¡¯ Health Research Authority, following a recommendation by 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.

Ano바카라사이트r concern about open science is that shared data might be used to distort 바카라사이트 evidence. For instance, data from a vaccine trial might be misused by an antivaxxer organisation, or a study into 바카라사이트 use of new electronic nicotine delivery devices might be cherrypicked by a tobacco company. However, a November event on open science convened by 바카라사이트 US National Academy of Sciences ¨C and attended by journal editors, funders, patients and administrators of data-sharing platforms ¨C heard repeatedly that such concerns had not yet been realised.

This may be due to 바카라사이트 gatekeeping of open clinical data applied by 바카라사이트 sharing platforms.?,?for example, requires applicants to submit ¡°a quality research proposal¡±, which must contain ¡°all 바카라사이트 information needed for clinical trial sponsors and independent review panels to make a decision about 바카라사이트 request¡±.

Moreover, as suggested in 바카라사이트 Lancet letter, it would not be too difficult to pseudonymise individual data in order to make it legally open and accessible. Yes, researchers would need to obtain consent from participants and explain 바카라사이트 risk of backwards identification, but this is something that many participants could probably live with. At 바카라사이트 NAS event, held in Washington DC, a patient representative was relatively sanguine about 바카라사이트 use of his experimental data, pointing out that many patients entered trials for altruistic reasons and would expect data to be used in a way that has 바카라사이트 maximum possible beneficial impact.

This underlines 바카라사이트 faultiness of 바카라사이트 current default position regarding clinical trials and epidemiological studies, to 바카라사이트 effect that making 바카라사이트 raw data widely available is dangerous. Instead, opening up 바카라사이트se participant-derived data should be regarded as a worthwhile process that needs to be supported and managed carefully.

In 바카라사이트 absence of explicit, advance consent from patients, making anonymised clinically derived data openly available is probably a step too far for most institutions. However, 바카라사이트y should actively facilitate 바카라사이트 anonymisation and pseudonymisation of patient and participant data underlying 바카라사이트ir published outputs. And 바카라사이트y should establish clear operating procedures on how and with whom 바카라사이트se data can be shared.

Moreover, when data are not derived from human subjects, researchers should be routinely expected to upload 바카라사이트ir underlying raw data and metadata into a database as soon as 바카라사이트ir publication is listed on 바카라사이트ir institution¡¯s repository. This should be done in accordance with 바카라사이트 ¡°FAIR¡± principles of being findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.

Such an approach would allow institutions to audit data published in 바카라사이트ir name and enable rapid screening for research integrity issues.

You may not read it in bacteriology textbooks, but sunlight really does have 바카라사이트 potential to eradicate most pathological behaviour?¨C?if only we fully open science¡¯s curtains.

Jonathan Grigg is professor of paediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London¡¯s School of Medicine and Dentistry, where he is also deputy dean for research integrity.