Friday
Sep242010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Free the data
Sep 24, 2010 FOI This is an excerpt from a letter published in the current edition of Nature by Keith Baggerly of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA and seven co-authors. It's not online but many thanks to the reader who sent a copy. The authors describe the investigation leading to the withdrawl of three clinical studies at Duke University, NC. They note that this investigation has taken thousands of hours, and that this was necessary because the source data was not available in full.
To counter this problem, journals should demand that authors submit sufficient detail for the independent assessment of their paper’s conclusions. data are backed up with adequate documentation and sample annotation; all primary data sources, such as database accessions or URL links, are presented; and all scripts and software source codes are supplied, with instructions. Analytical (non-scriptable) protocols should be described step by step, and the research protocol, including any plans for research and analysis, should be provided (see go.nature.com/ UaF2Kv). Files containing such information could be stored as supplements by the journal.
Reader Comments (12)
The authors are quite right. In business, this is (should be) normal practice so that work can be verified and replicated.
Fancy that, people stating the obvious.
It will never catch on I yell you!!!
Mailman
Shutting that particular stable door is no use now that the horse has bolted,is in a different county, and is probably a lead author for the IPCC......
Why should they give data out when those pesky kids are just going to try and find problems with it?
Self-certification of infallibility is a much better approach. As used by second-hand car salesmen, Delboy etc.
Look how well Mikey has done since adopting it. Very few of those tiresome and time-consuming explanations needed. No fuss, no muss........
Comparing the current state of peer review in climate science, to this, it sounds more like one of those impassioned speeches you hear at beauty contests that always end in "and world peace" :)
It's actually online here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/467401b.html
http://dukechronicle.com/article/three-clinical-trials-suspended-while-duke-investigates-potti
Also there are several more Chronicle articles on the right "Related Articles."
OT, but I think pertinent, as it sums up the general situation very well: I just found this on Climategate TV, but it reads better for me on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE_avBRQqbk&feature=player_embedded
You mean that they actually have data? My, who would have thought?
If you haven't seen it, this should be of interest as an example of corruption of the scientific publication process: http://www.badscience.net/2010/09/ghostwriters/
Who would ever think to question the credentials of someone named Anil Potti? If the latter were to lie about anything, surely it would be his name.
Note this line from the July 19 letter signed by 33 biostatisticians, as quoted by the Chroncle: "...However, despite written statements from the external experts, who uniformly stated they were not given sufficient information to confirm the validity of the models, the trials have been reinitiated.”
Did the whitewash wear a bit thin?