
A paper about eye damage in astronauts got pulled for “security concerns.” Huh? - Ice_cream_suit
http://retractionwatch.com/2017/11/03/paper-eye-damage-astronauts-got-pulled-security-concerns-huh/
======
Reason077
There's only a relatively small number of astronauts, so it seems the concern
here is that the medical condition of individual test subjects is at risk of
being disclosed by the paper.

~~~
rlpb
I would consider it a condition of astronauts' employment that their medical
condition will be made public where a link with astronautical activity is
plausibly hypothesized (ie. with a very low standard of proof).

They are test subjects, after all, funded at least in part by the taxpayer.
Medical investigation is part of the point of their jobs. Suppression of the
results harms scientific progress and is not in the public interest.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way, and neither do I.

There are lots of things that we could do to speed up scientific progress, but
they're not all necessarily ethical. Making private individuals' medical
records effectively public is quite possibly one of those things.

~~~
j-pb
I'm pretty sure there are enough people that voluntarily give up their medical
privacy AND want to go to space.

If you don't want to disclose your medical record, fine. But don't expect
others to funnel billions into you just to make your dream of going to space
come true.

~~~
nkozyra
Maybe they can do so voluntarily. If you exclude people from the program
because they're not bending to the will of "my tax dollars" arguments you'll
assuredly lose out on talented people in a small specialization pool.

~~~
phyller
My understanding is that there are literally hundreds of qualified, passionate
applicants for each spot. I've met a few. If we are spending billions of
dollars to strap that particular person to a rocket, I think humanity should
be able to benefit as much as possible. I don't think its unreasonable to have
as a requirement for that service that certain health records might not remain
private. Just like it would not be unreasonable to require certain high level
public servants to divulge their tax records, as long as it was understood as
a requirement beforehand.

~~~
grayhatter
The problem is not, if we have enough applicants. It's did THESE people agree
to it. If not, it's wrong to disclose this data publicly without their
consent. This is an example of better to ask permission, not forgiveness.

Combined with the notion that I'm sure the paper will be anonmised and re-
released. I'd even bet this is a non-issue. (Assuming the assertions
previously made in this thread of course).

------
Ice_cream_suit
The article is:

Role of Cerebrospinal Fluid in Spaceflight-induced Ocular Changes and Visual
Impairment in Astronauts

[https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161981](https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161981)

It can be found, as usual at SciHub Moscow. So the Russians who use Sci Hub
Moscow can read it, but American doctors who subscribe to Radiology cannot...

The original article is worth reading, it talks about choroidal folds and
visual impairment that lasts for years after space flight.

~~~
krick
American doctors cannot use SciHub?

~~~
justinjlynn
Well, they can but they can't really publicly admit they do.

~~~
aesclepius
I use it on a BID basis (medical).

------
Ice_cream_suit
[http://libgen.io/scimag/index.php?s=10.1148%2Fradiol.2017161...](http://libgen.io/scimag/index.php?s=10.1148%2Fradiol.2017161981&journalid=&v=&i=&p=&redirect=1)

Libgen and SciHub Moscow links to the censored paper.

~~~
dekhn
retracted, not censored.

~~~
ChuckMcM
The mechanism used was a retraction notice, however there was no debate that
the research was legitimate and valid, so it could plausibly be said that the
retraction mechanism was used to censor the radiology journal that had
published the paper.

------
PhasmaFelis
From the article, it sounds like NASA felt the author didn't respond promptly
enough to their request for him to redact personally identifiable information
(though he did redact it eventually), and is punishing him for it (by pulling
both his research and the grant they gave him).

------
mar77i
Wait, why are you worrying about Scott Kelly's medical data?

That's what he was in space for, right?

------
emilfihlman
For those interested: the paper is available on researchgate.net apparently

~~~
justinjlynn
Streisand effect in 5..4..3..

------
timinman
The page is not responding. I smell Bigfoot.

