> Sorry, but isn't science about more than one person getting access to the data and re-running the experiments?
Yes, but that's not happening here. They've not released all the data with explanations of how thing were measured, caveats, and context.
> While I understand that it is politically inconvenient for the scientists, that shouldn't really be what decides what the public gets access to (especially since this is a tax-payer founded study).
You're making it sound like this will never be released. It's not like they'd hide it if the data showed things weren't as bad as expected, in which case a leaked report would be important. This is a leak equivalent to grabbing a corner from the notes on someones desk and then turning it into a news story. This is in no way a report about leaked information that should be public, it will be public. It has nothing to do with "it's my taxes", it'll all be made public. What they want to do first is have it reviewed and checked before slapping their name on it and saying "we're confident in the data and the analysis".
What happens if there's a problem with the way this data was captured, which means there's a particular correlation with something else that must be accounted for before it makes sense? What if there are conclusions that aren't supported by the data, which could be found in review and amended?
> In fact wouldn't it be fair that they are to check their report into a public subversion repository as it is being written?
Fair? Why? Unless you're acting as a reviewer there's no reason to see the paper before it's in its final form. In fact, knowing how bad we are at thinking things are true even when shown to be false, seeing anything that people aren't really quite sure about is an extremely bad idea.
If they were to shelve the whole report, then yes, a leak would be interesting. Otherwise it's a massive waste of time, which can seriously harm the credibility of the final paper.
Yes, but that's not happening here. They've not released all the data with explanations of how thing were measured, caveats, and context.
> While I understand that it is politically inconvenient for the scientists, that shouldn't really be what decides what the public gets access to (especially since this is a tax-payer founded study).
You're making it sound like this will never be released. It's not like they'd hide it if the data showed things weren't as bad as expected, in which case a leaked report would be important. This is a leak equivalent to grabbing a corner from the notes on someones desk and then turning it into a news story. This is in no way a report about leaked information that should be public, it will be public. It has nothing to do with "it's my taxes", it'll all be made public. What they want to do first is have it reviewed and checked before slapping their name on it and saying "we're confident in the data and the analysis".
What happens if there's a problem with the way this data was captured, which means there's a particular correlation with something else that must be accounted for before it makes sense? What if there are conclusions that aren't supported by the data, which could be found in review and amended?
> In fact wouldn't it be fair that they are to check their report into a public subversion repository as it is being written?
Fair? Why? Unless you're acting as a reviewer there's no reason to see the paper before it's in its final form. In fact, knowing how bad we are at thinking things are true even when shown to be false, seeing anything that people aren't really quite sure about is an extremely bad idea.
If they were to shelve the whole report, then yes, a leak would be interesting. Otherwise it's a massive waste of time, which can seriously harm the credibility of the final paper.