 |
|
Data Withholding in Academic Genetics
Evidence From a National Survey
Eric G. Campbell, PhD;
Brian R. Clarridge, PhD;
Manjusha Gokhale, MA;
Lauren Birenbaum, BA;
Stephen Hilgartner, PhD;
Neil A. Holtzman, MD,MPH;
David Blumenthal, MD,MPP
JAMA. 2002;287:473-480.
Context The free and open sharing of information, data, and materials regarding published research is vital to the replication of published results, the efficient advancement of science, and the education of students. Yet in daily practice, the ideal of free sharing is often breached.
Objective To understand the nature, extent, and consequences of data withholding in academic genetics.
Design, Setting, and Participants Mailed survey (March-July 2000) of geneticists and other life scientists in the 100 US universities that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1998. Of a potential 3000 respondents, 2893 were eligible and 1849 responded, yielding an overall response rate of 64%. We analyzed a subsample of 1240 self-identified geneticists and made a limited number of comparisons with 600 self-identified nongeneticists.
Main Outcome Measures Percentage of faculty who made requests for data that were denied; percentage of respondents who denied requests; influences on and consequences of withholding data; and changes over time in perceived willingness to share data.
Results Forty-seven percent of geneticists who asked other faculty for additional information, data, or materials regarding published research reported that at least 1 of their requests had been denied in the preceding 3 years. Ten percent of all postpublication requests for additional information were denied. Because they were denied access to data, 28% of geneticists reported that they had been unable to confirm published research. Twelve percent said that in the previous 3 years, they had denied another academician's request for data concerning published results. Among geneticists who said they had intentionally withheld data regarding their published work, 80% reported that it required too much effort to produce the materials or information; 64%, that they were protecting the ability of a graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, or junior faculty member to publish; and 53%, that they were protecting their own ability to publish. Thirty-five percent of geneticists said that sharing had decreased during the last decade; 14%, that sharing had increased. Geneticists were as likely as other life scientists to deny others' requests (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-2.40) and to have their own requests denied (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40). However, other life scientists were less likely to report that withholding had a negative impact on their own research as well as their field of research.
Conclusions Data withholding occurs in academic genetics and it affects essential scientific activities such as the ability to confirm published results. Lack of resources and issues of scientific priority may play an important role in scientists' decisions to withhold data, materials, and information from other academic geneticists.
Author Affiliations: Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Drs Campbell and Blumenthal and Mss Gokhale and Birenbaum); Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (Drs Campbell and Blumenthal); Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston (Dr Clarridge); Health Policy and Management Department, Epidemiology Department, and Institute for Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (Dr Holtzman); and Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (Dr Hilgartner).
RELATED ARTICLE
January 23/30, 2002
JAMA. 2002;287(4):527-528.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology
Vallas and Kleinman
Socioecon Rev 2008;6:283-311.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A National Online Survey on the Effectiveness of Clinical Alarms
Korniewicz et al.
Am J Crit Care 2008;17:36-41.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science
Murray and Graham
Ind Corp Change 2007;16:657-689.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
University patenting and the pace of industrial innovation
Fabrizio
Ind Corp Change 2007;16:505-534.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships
Campbell et al.
NEJM 2007;356:1742-1750.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patents and data-sharing in public science
Eisenberg
Ind Corp Change 2006;15:1013-1031.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Processes of Inclusion, Cultures of Calculation, Structures of Power: Scientific Citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Goven
Science Technology Human Values 2006;31:565-598.
ABSTRACT
Reproducible Epidemiologic Research
Peng et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:783-789.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Property rights, firm boundaries, and the republic of science--A note on Ashish Arora and Robert Merges
Ramello
Ind Corp Change 2005;14:1195-1204.
FULL TEXT
A community approach to data integration: Authorship and building meaningful links across diverse archaeological data sets
Kansa
Geosphere 2005;1:97-109.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Regulating Academic-Industrial Research Relationships -- Solving Problems or Stifling Progress?
Stossel
NEJM 2005;353:1060-1065.
FULL TEXT
The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research
Mirowski and Van Horn
Social Studies of Science 2005;35:503-548.
ABSTRACT
Academic-Industrial Relationships in the Life Sciences
Blumenthal
NEJM 2003;349:2452-2459.
FULL TEXT
NIMH Human Genetics Initiative: 2003 Update
Moldin
Am. J. Psychiatry 2003;160:621-622.
FULL TEXT
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman et al.
JAMA 2003;289:454-465.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patenting of genetic material: Are the benefits to society being realized?
Willison and MacLeod
CMAJ 2002;167:259-262.
FULL TEXT
Withholding of Data Among Academic Geneticists
Beaulieu and Campbell
JAMA 2002;287:1939-1940.
FULL TEXT
|
