Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Want To Keep Their Research Work Out of Court
concealment writes "How much privacy is the scientific process entitled to? During the course of their work, researchers produce e-mails, preliminary results, and peer reviews, all of which might be more confused or critical than the final published works. Recently, both private companies with a vested interest in discounting the results, and private groups with a political axe to grind have attempted to use the courts to get access to that material.Would it be possible or wise to keep these documents private and immune to subpoenas? In the latest issue of Science, a group of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) argue that scientists need more legal rights to retain these documents and protect themselves in court."
Helps them to be dishonest about results and the research.
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
There are discoveries made for the sake of discovery and those made for financial gain.
As long as we can support the latter without destroying the former, proceed.
Agreed. I would happily share all of my correspondence and preliminary analysis if it means GlaxoSmithKline has to share theirs.
Being able to subpoena anything pretty much means having it done by people who have an ax to grind, or to benefit someone with an ax to grind.
It's like asking "should the police be able to arrest suspects?" The answer is that clearly it's not a good idea for the police to arrest anyone they want to, and that we need to make rules about who the police can arrest, but on the other hand, we shouldn't just say "the police should never arrest anyone". Arrests are necessary to catch suspects, and catching suspects is necessary because some of them will turn out to be criminals.
Sometimes people with an ax to grind will need to see scientists' documents, and actually use them to discredit the scientists--but that's not a reason not to do it--that's the whole point of doing it, just like sometimes people will be arrested, tried, and put in jail.
Then any e-mail that pertains to the research that the public paid for is public information.
Why any scientist would request privacy protections is beyond me. Science is, by definition, supposed to be an open process of record.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
As much as this may be beneficial to scientists, I feel that in the case of publicly-funded institutions, it would set a bad precedent for the overall cause of public sector transparency. It has been a long, hard fight for increased transparency in government (FOI laws and such) and I think creating an exception for scientific agencies doesn't send the right message.
When scientists publish their results, they publish their methods and data along with it. Their personal emails are not peer reviewed science and should not have to be published for everyone to read. If there's something wrong with their methods then you should find it in the work they actually published, not some random email they sent out at 4 am without thinking about.
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
Agreed comrade! Now, why are you not sharing your personal e-mails and work e-mails with me? Unless someone is up to no good, eh? Surely your business is as "pure" as Science?
When did we drop the "privacy is a human right" mantra on Slashdot? I really miss that. Scientists are humans. Their work should be public if it was paid by the public. Their work should be public if they wish for it to be peer reviewed. But what purpose does opening up their communication hold? If they really wanted to be "up to no good" surely they would merely find another way to communicate than the e-mails that are published? Will this solve anything? Scientists are humans, not slaves. E-mails about picking their kid up from soccer at a time and place should be kept private, even if they use their work e-mail. E-mails where they call a colleague bad names in confidence to a lab assistant should be kept private. Etc. Etc.
If their work involved wrong doing then it should be presented as evidence in court regardless of who paid for it. My biggest concern here is when these court investigations of scientists are politically motivated witch hunts.
My work here is dung.
Is the issue the scientific process, or is the issue the legal system?
It strikes me as the latter. It seems like a reasonable person would easily conclude that a scientific work in progress would contain a lot of incomplete data, a lot of conflicting theories, explanations and incomplete analysis of the data and the project itself.
However, the "reasonable person" conclusion doesn't seem like any kind of barrier from a legal system which makes it very easy for nearly anyone of means to file broad lawsuits by cherry-picking information and forcing defendants to organize expensive, complex defenses.
I think it's important from a justice perspective for anyone to be able to bring a civil suit, however, I think in some cases the rules should be changed to force some kind of automatic review of civil cases whenever some set of standards, like a large asymmetry between plaintiff and defendant resources or damage claims and require "the big guy" to more clearly explain their losses.
All that being said, I think a lot of scientists need to stick to science and be a little more muted with their political opinions. When scientists are extremely strident with their political views it automatically calls into question the accuracy of their science, especially in light of news stories like the huge increase in fraudulent results (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/study-finds-fraud-is-widespread-in-retracted-scientific-papers.html).
Scientists who stick to science will tend to be seen more as neutral experts explaining phenomenon and not as biased experts structuring their science to fit their opinions. Furthermore it probably helps the scientists as well, since having a strong political opinion on your research subject is only likely to increase the risk that you'll be tempted to massage your results, conclusions or worse instead of having to face some humiliation for both your theories and your opinions from being repudiated by your own science.
Gary Taubes has done some great reporting in the nutrition field and its remarkable how much the science is weakened when scientists hold strong opinions without strong science to back them up. See his article in Science on salt research for an example.
No certain scientist want to keep their data hidden. Sorry, if you are public ally funded then show your data.. if you are advocating policies and tion based on your findings. You better show your data and methods for scrutiny.
Just to be perfectly 100% clear: this has nothing, in any way, shape, or form, anything whatsoever to do with the data or methods.
This is about the personal communications and rough drafts between the scientists. You know, the emails you send saying "Hey John could you take a look at "x" again, I want to know what you personally think?" or "Wanna go out for a beer later?" or "What do you think of the phrasing of "y"?"Stuff that has nothing to do with the science at all, but which could easily be cherry-picked by someone with a motive (and BP has one hell of a motive) to discredit someones work and/or reputation, with no chance for them to defend themselves. Some of it might be completely wrong and have been thrown out in the end results, yet could be trumpeted as part of the final answer by an interested party (even if that is a lie, some people would do exactly that).
So yes, it should probably stay hidden: it's irrelevant, and even if it was, letting (basically) only one side rip into it is completely biased.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Do you think you have a right to watch people take a shit in publicly funded bathrooms?
Why should these scientists be treated any different from government or corporate employees or private citizens with respect to court orders to release private documents. Everybody needs to learn that all written communications, lab notes, memos, emails, pictures, videos and audio recordings are fair game and should be created with that in mind. If scientists don't like it then change the laws for everyone. Meanwhile, don't do dumb stuff.
So if you are a medicare or social security recipient, we have a right to see your medical records.
If you drive on a public road subsidized by tax payer dollars, we have a right to see where you drive at all times.
If you breath air protected by tax payer dollars, we have a right to measure every molecule of air that comes in and out of your pie hole.
Sounds fair.
Actually, many scientists want to keep their data hidden for a time. It is kinda like patents and copyrights, gathering data can be time consuming, expensive, and unrewarding. It is the analysis that gets you credit, so generally scientists want a window where they have exclusive access to their data in order to be first to work with it. There have been some nasty events where some research group got a hold of someone else's data before they were done with it and scooped the glory without having done the unglamorous work.
If your beef is with the scientist, then you should say so right up front and persue it like any civil action against a person.
Hence the reference to a subpoena in the summary. That is issued by a court, meaning that there is a civil (or possibly criminal if the research involves public funds) action underway.
Judges have the power to allow or disallow evidence in court. So if the subject e-mails contain material not pertinent to the case, its a simple matter to have that redacted. If the content has bearing on the case, the judge can (and should) allow it.
If this is just an issue of the public's right to see the data and methods, then the e-mails aren't necessary. As long as pertinent data and methodology is documented in some form.
Have gnu, will travel.
The organization I work for (which shall go nameless so I can continue to get my paycheck) has this same issue: lots of documents, emails, and the like express opinions and emotions that may not reflect accurately upon the final product. They might even (typically incorrectly) indicate the product is unsafe or dangerous. As you might expect, lawyers in lawsuits LOVE to find those emails and documents. Our corporate solutions? Destroy all documents after about 90 days that are not deemed business critical. The emails and the like just get wiped out. It has vastly reduced the corporate risk. Though, we also regularly have classes about how important it is to avoid emotional emails with words like "failure" and "disaster" in them. Often, the lawyer-speak in these meetings is hilarious. HIghly recommended as a way to ease into your Monday morning.
Actually, GSK does have to share all their correspondence and preliminary analysis when they get sued. That's where we get a lot of the good stuff. Look up the tobacco industry documents online.
In the US, at least, a judge can order anyone -- even someone who isn't a party to the lawsuit -- to disclose any information that's "in the interests of justice."
I was once sitting through a drug patent lawsuit and they had admitted into evidence a guy's entire 4-drawer file cabinet. They digitized every page, put it in a database, and were projecting it onto a screen in the courtroom.
The process is ugly, but that's not a valid reason to hide the process from the world. If scientists are just going to provide the end result as a decree to which we are all supposed to adhere, then what you have is a religion.
When you decide to obscure or hide away the scientific process, you kill science.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Because then instead of doing peer-reviewed science, you can easily get someone with an agenda who is going to bully the scientists into engaging in stupid petty legal games.
You can see the data, but unless you have evidence of some conspiracy by the scientists involved, what does this serve?
Otherwise you're just doing science by a judge and jury, and if you can convince a court that, say, evolution doesn't have enough supporting math -- well, then you can declare it invalidated. The idea of who has the most lawyers deciding scientific outcomes is absurd.
I don't see the benefit in allowing the legal system to decide how the process of science works. In fact, it seems like it would be a great detriment to it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There are discoveries made for the sake of discovery and those made for financial gain.
As long as we can support the latter without destroying the former, proceed.
There is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell the difference in most cases. Since "discovery" research is usually funded the researchers have quite a strong vested financial interest in it. Moreover, don't you think GlaxoSmithKline will just classify every scrap of research they possibly can as "for the sake of discovery". It'll be like Hollywood accounting.
The did - from the article:
"Before the BP subpoena, WHOI researchers had already voluntarily released 52,000 pages to BP, which they claim included all the necessary information to replicate and confirm their analyses."
BP went on a fishing expedition asking for private correspondence, such as e-mails, in order to casting doubt on the researchers’ work.
Is this about being less accountable, or muddying the waters by attacking the process of science by which people work through to their final conclusion?
Part of the process is to take a contrary position to try to poke holes in your argument ... if some lawyer latches onto something from that process, and focuses on it instead of the final results, they can do a really good job of muddying the waters and making it look like the conclusions aren't justified.
This could also have the effect of causing universities to expend huge amounts of resources to defend the process in court -- and I can guarantee you that big pharma and oil companies can bury almost any university in legal actions to make it impossible for them .
I think science as a whole would be hurt by having the day-to-day process constantly opened up to lawyers and people with a vested interest in getting different results.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Let's have laws linking the right to privacy of the public and scientists, to the rights to privacy of corporate executives, politicians. Let's see if they will relinquish their rights to have private talk corrupt practices. And since they are representatives of public servants of public-supported, publicly owned, legally public entities, they should have very few rights to privacy.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Science is dedicated to the idea that the observer doesn't change the observation. That a scientific fact isn't just observable by liberals but also by conservatives. That the math used to reach a conclusion should be visible to all and not pruned to reach a specific conclusion.
Any emails that legitimately show pruning of data towards a thesis or biasing of tests towards a thesis are not matters of science privacy. They are a matter of charlatans pretending to be scientists and should not be protected using the argument that science is important and needs to be able to keep its privacy.
That said lawyers shouldn't be the ones filtering even the most corrupt of charlatans out of the scientific community.
That's a good point, but
(1) Scientific data has certain rules for collection and retention. Scientists have had papers retracted by the journals, and been found guilty of fraud, because they couldn't supply data to support their published results. (Back in the days of paper, you could go to the university book store and buy laboratory notebooks with numbered pages.) Having gaps in your records is itself suspicious. If you had a civil trial, the opposing lawyer would ask the scientist, "Isn't it customary in the profession to record this data?" If data is missing, the judge could rule that the jury should interpret it in the most unfavorable light.
(2) Destroying evidence because you know it could be harmful in court is called "despoilation of evidence," and it can be a crime (although Oliver North got away with it).
There were a lot of embarrassing moments in the early days of computerization when missing documents would turn up in the backup tapes. "Retention experts" advised companies to destroy backup tapes after a legally minimum time. But you never can be sure that something is completely gone. Documents get distributed, and somebody may have a copy left.
In a modern organization, it's hard to avoid putting something important into writing. Laywers on one side figure out ways of getting around it, lawyers on the other side figure out ways of catching them. The tobacco companies did get caught, although they unfortunately didn't go to jail.
Reality is that anything that is part of what leads up to the scientific finding out to be available when asked for. Sure, they'll only publish what they want to, but in investigating it, all the materials do need to be available; and when investigating related matters (e.g. judicial matters) everything must be on the table.
If scientists do work for the government, then in the US FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests should be sufficient to compel the information so outside observers can investigate the work and findings for whatever reason they so choose. The scientists are, of course, free to challenge any results by said requesting party - e.g. challenge the credentials of the person(s) reviewing the work so as to show that they are or are not capable of understanding what they are looking at. (For instance, a chemist reviewing biology notes may have some insights but would not necessariy be fully qualified to comment on them in whole.)
If the scientists do work for private organizations without any money from government, then standard work practices ought to apply - if requested by subpeona they should comply. Again, the organization and its lawyers can challenge the credentials of the person(s) reviewing it.
The only thing to be gained by hiding the work is to hide the biases, intents, and motives behind it, and to hide any fraudulent results; and to prohibit others from making further findings based on the work (e.g. someone noticing a special attribute that was overlooked).
Yes, peer reviewing has its place; but so does the abilities of others to review scientific work. The other option, of course, is they can do the work, publish, but be prohibited from having it taught about anywhere - without full access its just as useless.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
and no more after that. There is a "gray area" of data in science publishing. A scientific paper usually contains a summary of the raw data converted in graphs and figures. The raw data and computer programs for generating the paper and figures should be kept around and perhaps loaded onto tio some public archive for replication. Some research groups (I was in one) already do this. Dead ends, bad data, bad runs should not necessary be published. No one wants to replicate that. And it clogs up the archives.
I used to work for a data forensics company a few years ago and trust me. It's never gone. Don't even bother to try to hide it or destroy it. (the act of destruction alone is seen as admitting guilt to the courts - and there are huge fines as well) It's also why 90% of most lawsuits settle out of court. Every company does morally questionable practices and sometimes outright illegal ones, so getting a look at their data is the last thing they want their competition or lawyers to be able to do.