
Criticism of “Research Parasites” Moves Medical Journal in Wrong Direction - tokenadult
http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/26/research-parasites-nejm/
======
rtl49
The system within which many researchers must work to advance their careers is
fundamentally at odds with sharing data. Collecting data is unglamorous,
laborious, and often very expensive. This places much data collection firmly
within the purview of research institutions, where resources and cheap labor
are abundant. To progress in this context, one must publish. It isn't enough
only to have collected the data; the researcher must also be the one to
analyze it, and to do so before someone else does. Thus for any self-
interested person in research, there is no incentive to disclose hard-won data
to the public at large, effectively crowd-sourcing analysis and foregoing the
career advantages and opportunities that a large store of useful data offers.
One may find it unethical, but few who have committed many years of hard labor
to advance in a research context would do otherwise.

~~~
hannob
So what you're saying is essentially that the point of science is to advance
careers, not to find insights and come closer to the truth? It may very well
be true, but that would be a devastating account of the situation of today's
science. And it would desperately need to be fixed.

~~~
ProblemFactory
No, and all scientists _want_ everyone to find insights and come closer to
truth.

But the reality is that both the career advancement and funding for further
experiments is almost entirely based on the number of publications in
prestigious journals.

And effort put into collecting data is not by itself publishable: you must add
analysis, and very often analysis that successfully confirms a new hypothesis
or invalidates previous beliefs to publish. Journals prefer to publish
exciting results, and "we ran experiment X, and found no significant effects"
is usually rejected.

Fixing this is desperately needed, but so far nobody has come up with a
solution that would actually fix this.

A middle ground would be to require data publication after a certain time
period. For example, NASA and ESA release original data 6-12 months after
collection. Releasing original data together with the paper also works.

~~~
eru
> Fixing this is desperately needed, but so far nobody has come up with a
> solution that would actually fix this.

Wouldn't rewarding people for `cites' of their dataset be a way to fix this?

Ie if someone uses your data, they have to cite you, and that's just as good
as someone citing an analysis paper.

------
pak
For an idea of what some of the backlash about the NEJM editorial looks like,
simply check Twitter for #researchparasites:
[https://twitter.com/search?q=%23researchparasites](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23researchparasites)
\-- and for a quicker version, some of the most influential voices are
summarized here: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidshaywitz/2016/01/21/data-
sc...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidshaywitz/2016/01/21/data-scientists-
research-parasites)

The paragraph from NEJM's piece that drew the brunt of the scorn was the
following:

 _A second concern held by some is 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.”_

The meme has already given birth to at least one parody account:
[https://twitter.com/dataparasite](https://twitter.com/dataparasite) and one
rather tongue-in-cheek domain purchase:
[http://researchparasites.com](http://researchparasites.com)

~~~
Satifer
"...or even use the data to try to disprove what the original investigators
had posited."

How is this a bad thing?

The original investigators - as scientists and seekers of the valid, the
factual, the accurate - should welcome competing attempts, especially given
that such attempts may reveal a faulty original analysis.

~~~
c3534l
Indeed. It is such a bizarrely anti-science attitude. I suspect the mindset is
not about advancing scientific discourse, but maintaining the sense of
prestige the journal's name carries.

~~~
michaelhoffman
I'm not sure how well that prestige is earned. NEJM has to retract
substantially more papers than any other high-profile journal:

[http://retractionwatch.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-
retra...](http://retractionwatch.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-retraction-
index/)

If the papers they publish get more scrutiny, they will undoubtedly have to
retract even more.

------
cm2187
To understand the medical profession point of view, you need to understand
that the "material" used for their research is a rare and precious commodity:
humans with a particular condition.

Gathering enough patients to do a study on some particular disease is often
difficult and the result of a career long reputation. Doctors usually refer to
it as their "recruitment", ie patients addressed to them because they are the
reference in this field, something that these "parasite" researchers will get
credit for without having to earn it

That's why I believe they are so protective with data.

~~~
tokenadult
Thanks for sharing a professional insider perspective. But wouldn't any other
researcher who obtains the data from doctors who recruited the patients have
to give credit to the doctors who shared their data? Isn't that a much better
professional reputation to have than the reputation of doctors who refuse to
share data?

Just in the last two weeks, the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors proposed new rules[1] about sharing clinical trial data. Commentators
think that kind of data sharing is a very good idea.[2] As a reader of medical
research who has heard a lot of "war stories" about the medical research
process from family members who have observed that process at first hand, it
seems to me that having more eyes on each data set is nearly always a good
idea.

[1]
[http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2482115](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2482115)

[2] [http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/01/27/proposal-
data-s...](http://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/01/27/proposal-data-sharing-
remarkable-turning-point-says-yales-krumholz/)

~~~
riahi
Sharing the data doesn't get you promoted in academia. Writing papers where
you repeatedly mine the hand-crafted-over-20-years dataset does. If you give
your dataset away for free, you're destroying your only way to advance in
academic medicine.

What we need are alternative funding models for academic medicine. With all
the negative press and ethical issues from pharma funding the studies, and the
NIH cutting their funding, publish or perish is even more important if you
want a sliver of a chance to get some of the remaining grant money.

~~~
jensen123
So I guess the concern "that data sharing would require them to commit scarce
resources with little direct benefit" is just a pretext then. Obviously, just
putting some data up on a website is cheap.

~~~
riahi
It is cheap, but how do you measure that? There's no impact factor or
associated journal publication.

Since simply providing the data can't be measured for tenure or fit into a
line item on a CV, academia as a whole assigns it zero value. This then means
that simply sharing data is a huge net negative given the high costs of
acquiring it.

------
pistle
I'm a clinical research ex-data-minion.

In that research context, it can take teams of 10's to 100's years to
establish a usable dataset which can win grant money to both serve patient
populations and reinforce the long-term sustainability of a clinical/academic
institution.

You bet your ass that data isn't going to be given out. It's not about
covering your ass. It's about stewardship of data which has been culled via
consent from participants, often of a very sensitive nature, with specific and
explicit limits to how it will be used, managed, and shared.

It's a gold mine that was built from years of getting at the forefront of a
niche and then racing year after year to stay there.

The gold from the mine isn't used just to line someone's pockets or add lines
to a CV. That gold often is used to provide in the treatment of people who
would otherwise be left to the whims of state legislatures that play political
football with Medicaid and funding for health services for underserved
populations.

Also, from my experience, investigators sitting on good datasets often WANT to
share them for use since it establishes increased value and bodes well for
future grant competitiveness. Here again... bring your credentials since you
are being privy to something bordering on sacred. When I see a term like
"research parasites," I know who they are talking about, and no, they are not
going to be accepted as a collaborator. It might be a lack of any facet
necessary to carry that data stewardship at or beyond what the originator has
done - and that is not something you easily demonstrate outside of the
existing systems.

------
lutusp
It's really very simple -- either publicly supported science is meant to serve
the common good, in which case total data transparency is required, or
publicly supported science is actually meant to be a vehicle for corporate
profits, in which case all scientific data is proprietary and those who share
research data are cheating stockholders.

All this apart from the most basic principle of scientific philosophy, in
which earnest, transparent efforts to find out which theories cannot be
falsified has the highest priority.

~~~
frozenport
I'm laughing at your comment because it assumes the data is valuable! In
reality a significant chunk of it is made up, this is more about people hiding
their arses then corporate profits!

~~~
chris_wot
And why would they make up the data? Not saying they don't - Wakefield
certainly did.

~~~
frozenport
Millions of reasons, but the problem is that scientists are not accountable.
Especially, if their violation agrees with pre-existing intuition.

~~~
lutusp
> ... but the problem is that scientists are not accountable.

Arguable, but if they don't have to release their data, then very true -- they
aren't accountable. By requiring scientists to release their data, we make
them accountable for any shenanigans that might otherwise be concealed.

------
michaelhoffman
This editorial was sparked by a recent proposal by the International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). They are considering requiring that those
publishing clinical trial reports must also share the underlying data.

The ICMJE says that authors should have the ability to prevent release of the
data for six months after publication. This will prevent researchers from
performing independent analyses of a study, until well after its conclusions
have been trumpeted in the press. Also, while many papers currently promise
data or other materials are "available on request," anyone who has tried to
actually get these data knows that this is often just wishful thinking. Only
by requiring data availability in an independent repository at publication can
journal editors and reviewers ensure that it will be available to other
researchers and the public.

The ICMJE is accepting comments on this proposal through April 18:

[https://forms.acponline.org/webform/comments-
icmje%E2%80%99s...](https://forms.acponline.org/webform/comments-
icmje%E2%80%99s-proposals-sharing-clinical-trial-data)

If you are a patient or a researcher, please comment.

------
kriro
I don't understand the redaction. The title of the journal is partly
redacted...how many words can fit in that blank space even if you ignore word
length analysis. "Review", "Journal" maybe a couple more. An then they also
have a link to nejm.org and a seal that reads "New England Journal of
Medicine".

Am I missing something, that redaction is...odd.

------
cant_kant
The original line from the editorial was: " 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 issue of the Journal offers a
product of data sharing that is exactly the opposite. The new investigators
arrived on the scene with their own ideas and worked symbiotically, rather
than parasitically, with the investigators holding the data, moving the field
forward in a way that neither group could have done on its own. "

I do not read that as the editor calling researchers parasites. Rather, the
editorial is exploring different ways of data sharing and collaboration.

See the NEJM editorial that sparked the controvery at
[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1516564](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1516564)

The blog post appears to go to some effort to misinterpret the editorial.

------
cLeEOGPw
How about separating data gathering from scientific analysis? Government would
fund data gathering based on some things that scientists need and make that
data publicly available, thus shifting the responsibility of data validity at
least from scientists to "data miners". I think everyone would win from this
data model.

------
mesh
Related planet money episode:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/01/15/463237871/episode-677-the-
experiment-experiment)

------
hannob
If anyone's interested I recently blogged / commented about this issue as
well: [https://betterscience.org/archives/7-Data-Sharing-and-the-
Re...](https://betterscience.org/archives/7-Data-Sharing-and-the-Research-
Parasites.html)

------
chris_wot
The Partially Derivative guys covered this on their latest podcast.[1] And by
which I mean the bristled at the thought of being called "parasites".

1\.
[http://www.partiallyderivative.com/news/2016/1/25/episode-38...](http://www.partiallyderivative.com/news/2016/1/25/episode-38-mind-
control-and-parasites)

------
YeGoblynQueenne
tl;dr, the Market has broken Science.

~~~
stevetrewick
This is not at all obvious, would you care to expand ?

~~~
chris_wot
The entire editorial is premised on the fact that some "parasites" shouldn't
have access to scrutinise data because the market incentives are reduced.

~~~
stevetrewick
What market ? Markets balance supply and demand via prices or some analogue
thereof. I thoroughly and enthusiastically agree that incentives are the basic
problem but incentives != markets.

~~~
chris_wot
The "price" is reputation, and your name on a paper. It's a market of
influence and prestige!

~~~
stevetrewick
And that balances supply and demand how ? I understand where you're coming
from, but 'influence and prestige'\- unless they are traded - are not market
goods. To preempt, competition based on status signals also != markets.

Though what the NEMJ authors seem to desire _is_ more akin to a market - I'll
trade you this data for the prestige of a co authorship - this is not 'markets
broke science', this is 'scientists believe an explicit market structure will
maximise their utility'.

These seem to me to be radically different statements, though this may be a
matter of perspective.

------
frozenport
We need goverment intervention. The scientific community has shown itself
unable to produce reproducible results, and unwilling to share raw data. If
the NIH demands that PubMed indexes our work, they should likewise demand that
all the results are published.

