What the New England Journal of Medicine has in common with my 2- and 4-year old children

i gather academic Twitter is exploding over a New England Journal of Medicine editorial that worries that:

a new class of research person will emerge—people who had nothing to do with the design and execution of the study but use another group’s data for their own ends, possibly stealing from the research productivity planned by the data gatherers, or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators had posited. There is concern among some front-line researchers that the system will be taken over by what some researchers have characterized as “research parasites.”

This is rightly being called out as anti-scientific. Maybe the best response so far was David Shaywitz:

I was delighted to see this editorial.

Not because I agreed with it–my heart is truly with the data scientists–but because I was grateful that someone had the courage to articulate a perspective I’ve come to believe is shared by the vast majority of academic researchers, but publicly voiced by no one–until now.

I see this data hoarding instinct all the time. I also see my two toddlers gather all their toys in their arms at once and insist to the other “I AM PLAYING WITH ALL OF THEM.”

Similarly, I see authors and corporations try to extend copyright again and again. This greed instinct is natural and motivates data collection and a good deal of work. But innovation means it needs to be balanced against public use.

I think the days you can mine a dataset for five years (or forever) before sharing are nearly over, and good riddance. You’ll find most of my data online with publication, if not beforehand.

Hat tip to David Lam.

30 Responses