Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Excellent descriptive article until the last two paragraphs.
I’d add to the statement, “even the most trustworthy researchers are not so insightful as to see all that is meaningful in their work or motivated to report every data point that may be at odds with their conclusions,” that many researchers skip looking at what could be highly relevant. Example: fluorescent protein expression in transgenic mice (or other organisms). A renal researcher is likely to not even screen the location of the fluorescence in other tissues, yet how other tissues express (or don’t) the proteins may yield great insight into the kidney or function across the entire organism. Especially in the age of translational research, shouldn’t we be considering the biology as a whole?
And wouldn’t everyone benefit if these data were public and tagged to be searchable and comprehended? Two pro arguments amongst many: efficiency and cross-field connections. So far, great!
But it is at this point that the article veers into a utopian dream. The penultimate paragraph states as current practice something that, were it true, may be laudable, creating clinical data as part of a social contract to provide for the common good. The author depicts patients as paragons of selflessness without seeking personal benefit. Really? Don’t most seek to be cured even if it uses resources at the expense of others? And academic investigators are accused of being data hoarders to support their careers. Small fry compared to the industries not mentioned in the article, pharmaceutical corporations which push technologies for all but are also rely on secrecy, patents, and lucrative licensing. This is the reality, a capitalist society with wealth (including information) concentrated in the hands of few and, as for academic researchers, they shouldn’t be blamed as our culture promotes exceptionalism of the individual. You can only publish novel data. A precept of success is, “Amateurs borrow, professionals steal.”
The conclusion, that we need to share data, would make science better, but does not logically follow from the flawed penultimate paragraph. The problems are way larger than selfless patients being abused by selfish academics.
Re: Data sharing: lessons from Copernicus and Kepler
Excellent descriptive article until the last two paragraphs.
I’d add to the statement, “even the most trustworthy researchers are not so insightful as to see all that is meaningful in their work or motivated to report every data point that may be at odds with their conclusions,” that many researchers skip looking at what could be highly relevant. Example: fluorescent protein expression in transgenic mice (or other organisms). A renal researcher is likely to not even screen the location of the fluorescence in other tissues, yet how other tissues express (or don’t) the proteins may yield great insight into the kidney or function across the entire organism. Especially in the age of translational research, shouldn’t we be considering the biology as a whole?
And wouldn’t everyone benefit if these data were public and tagged to be searchable and comprehended? Two pro arguments amongst many: efficiency and cross-field connections. So far, great!
But it is at this point that the article veers into a utopian dream. The penultimate paragraph states as current practice something that, were it true, may be laudable, creating clinical data as part of a social contract to provide for the common good. The author depicts patients as paragons of selflessness without seeking personal benefit. Really? Don’t most seek to be cured even if it uses resources at the expense of others? And academic investigators are accused of being data hoarders to support their careers. Small fry compared to the industries not mentioned in the article, pharmaceutical corporations which push technologies for all but are also rely on secrecy, patents, and lucrative licensing. This is the reality, a capitalist society with wealth (including information) concentrated in the hands of few and, as for academic researchers, they shouldn’t be blamed as our culture promotes exceptionalism of the individual. You can only publish novel data. A precept of success is, “Amateurs borrow, professionals steal.”
The conclusion, that we need to share data, would make science better, but does not logically follow from the flawed penultimate paragraph. The problems are way larger than selfless patients being abused by selfish academics.
Competing interests: No competing interests