Slashdot Mirror
'Nature' Editorial Juxtaposes FOIA Email Release With Illegal Hacking (vice.com)
Jason Koebler and Sarah Emerson, reporting for Motherboard: Private emails between scientists working on a controversial genetic technology called "gene drive" were released last week. Obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, their publication has been criticized by some as an attempt to discredit the science community. Gene drives are a genetic engineering approach with huge implications. They're meant to seed genetic traits -- one that stops mosquitoes from carrying malaria, for instance, or hampers invasive rodents' ability to reproduce -- in a population, and with terrifyingly high odds of inheritance. If things go wrong, gene drives could destabilize ecosystems. (So far, they've only been applied to yeast, fruit flies, and mosquitoes in a lab setting.) More ideally, they could wipe out deadly plagues by targeting their vectors, or give threatened species a fighting chance. Like any young technology, there are a lot of unknowns, and stakeholders are hoping to provide clarity at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity next year; the same convention where a proposed gene drive moratorium was rejected in 2016. The emails and other documents reveal details about gene drive's biggest funders, including DARPA, the US military's research agency.
As one example, a prominent researcher in the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome field continues to make 'harrasment' allegations and veiled claims of threats, even after their university has revealed no threats were reported to them, and failing to bring up those threats when legal proceedings were mentioned.
Such 'harrasment' included FOIA, and questions being asked in parliament, and 'libelous blogs'.
http://www.virology.ws/2017/05/03/trial-by-error-continued-my-libelous-blogging-on-virology-blog/
After continually refusing to release information (as required by PLOS rules) a paper gets a warning attached to it:
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/02/plos-upgrades-flag-controversial-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-trial-authors-surprised/
They claim to be willing to share the data, in practice they are only willing to share the data with researchers who agree with them, and they can pre-vet.
After this data was obtained (part of it) though freedom of information requests, it turned out that the analysis done on it was at best sketchy and misleading on claims of recovery.