JAMA Data withholding in academic genetics

[Guest guest]

1: JAMA. 2002 Jan 23-30;287(4):473-80. Related Articles, Links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=pubmed & dopt=Abstract & list_uids=11798369 & query_hl=8

Comment in:

JAMA. 2002 Apr 17;287(15):1939-40; author reply 1940.

Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national

survey.

EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S,

Holtzman NA, Blumenthal D.

Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,

MA 02114, USA. ecampbell@...

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.

PMID: 11798369 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]