Scientists Want To Keep Their Research Work Out of Court 288
concealment writes "How much privacy is the scientific process entitled to? During the course of their work, researchers produce e-mails, preliminary results, and peer reviews, all of which might be more confused or critical than the final published works. Recently, both private companies with a vested interest in discounting the results, and private groups with a political axe to grind have attempted to use the courts to get access to that material.Would it be possible or wise to keep these documents private and immune to subpoenas? In the latest issue of Science, a group of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) argue that scientists need more legal rights to retain these documents and protect themselves in court."
Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
Helps them to be dishonest about results and the research.
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
Re:Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
There are discoveries made for the sake of discovery and those made for financial gain.
As long as we can support the latter without destroying the former, proceed.
Agreed. I would happily share all of my correspondence and preliminary analysis if it means GlaxoSmithKline has to share theirs.
Re:FP? (Score:1, Insightful)
Rather than granting special rights to groups, how about we go about fixing the process where said discoveries ought to be more difficult to procure?
Because we NEVER fix broken laws. It would be UnAmerican. And some corporation somewhere might make less money.
And that's what matters. We don't care about your puny humanitarian concerns.
If you receive public dollars to do research... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then any e-mail that pertains to the research that the public paid for is public information.
Why any scientist would request privacy protections is beyond me. Science is, by definition, supposed to be an open process of record.
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have to publish their methods. The problem is that if preliminary information is published, its easier for people to accuse them of bias without judging them based on their findings. This isn't science, that's politics. We need to keep politics out of science. What matters are the final published results. Those are the findings that they are saying, "Here is our data, we believe this is reproducible." If it's not independently verifiable, that will come out soon enough. If they practice good science, and peer review backs their findings, who cares if they initially had biases before the experiment began?
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose may be allowing people to speculate more freely in internal email without having to worry about email quotes later being taken out of context. It's the same reason why I don't keep my customer CCed when I'm working with engineering or operations to resolve an issue.
Sometimes it's nice to speak freely.
Emails are not peer reviewed science (Score:3, Insightful)
When scientists publish their results, they publish their methods and data along with it. Their personal emails are not peer reviewed science and should not have to be published for everyone to read. If there's something wrong with their methods then you should find it in the work they actually published, not some random email they sent out at 4 am without thinking about.
And What Horrible Things Are You Up To? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
Agreed comrade! Now, why are you not sharing your personal e-mails and work e-mails with me? Unless someone is up to no good, eh? Surely your business is as "pure" as Science?
When did we drop the "privacy is a human right" mantra on Slashdot? I really miss that. Scientists are humans. Their work should be public if it was paid by the public. Their work should be public if they wish for it to be peer reviewed. But what purpose does opening up their communication hold? If they really wanted to be "up to no good" surely they would merely find another way to communicate than the e-mails that are published? Will this solve anything? Scientists are humans, not slaves. E-mails about picking their kid up from soccer at a time and place should be kept private, even if they use their work e-mail. E-mails where they call a colleague bad names in confidence to a lab assistant should be kept private. Etc. Etc.
If their work involved wrong doing then it should be presented as evidence in court regardless of who paid for it. My biggest concern here is when these court investigations of scientists are politically motivated witch hunts [slashdot.org].
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
They're not talking about keeping data or methods secret.
The main theme running through TFA is about a wrangle between some folks at WHOI and BP over the DeepWater Horizon spill. WHOI did a lot of work to gauge things like the amount of oil being released, and BP claim they need this data to wrangle out how much they have to pay in damages. An important quote from the article is:
So BP aren't trying to force the release of the data or calculations because they've already got all of that and it was given up willingly. They're trying to force the release of every email, letter, note, text or other exchange of information which took place during the research.
The question is, if BP want to argue about the WHOI results then why do they need more than the raw data, methods and conclusions which they've already been given? Why do they need to trawl through every single piece of private correspondence, regardless of how relevant or important, to assess whether or not the results they have are good?
If they think the data is rotten they should lay their cards on the table and say why, and then subpoena every communication related to that particular facet of the research. Trying to obtain absolutely everything by force for no stated reason is begging for a fishing trip and some out of context quotes.
The issue is the science, or the legal system? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the issue the scientific process, or is the issue the legal system?
It strikes me as the latter. It seems like a reasonable person would easily conclude that a scientific work in progress would contain a lot of incomplete data, a lot of conflicting theories, explanations and incomplete analysis of the data and the project itself.
However, the "reasonable person" conclusion doesn't seem like any kind of barrier from a legal system which makes it very easy for nearly anyone of means to file broad lawsuits by cherry-picking information and forcing defendants to organize expensive, complex defenses.
I think it's important from a justice perspective for anyone to be able to bring a civil suit, however, I think in some cases the rules should be changed to force some kind of automatic review of civil cases whenever some set of standards, like a large asymmetry between plaintiff and defendant resources or damage claims and require "the big guy" to more clearly explain their losses.
All that being said, I think a lot of scientists need to stick to science and be a little more muted with their political opinions. When scientists are extremely strident with their political views it automatically calls into question the accuracy of their science, especially in light of news stories like the huge increase in fraudulent results (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/study-finds-fraud-is-widespread-in-retracted-scientific-papers.html).
Scientists who stick to science will tend to be seen more as neutral experts explaining phenomenon and not as biased experts structuring their science to fit their opinions. Furthermore it probably helps the scientists as well, since having a strong political opinion on your research subject is only likely to increase the risk that you'll be tempted to massage your results, conclusions or worse instead of having to face some humiliation for both your theories and your opinions from being repudiated by your own science.
Gary Taubes has done some great reporting in the nutrition field and its remarkable how much the science is weakened when scientists hold strong opinions without strong science to back them up. See his article in Science on salt research for an example.
Re:And What Horrible Things Are You Up To? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is Science folks... what purpose is served by keeping it secret? Unless someone is up to no good eh?
Agreed comrade! Now, why are you not sharing your personal e-mails and work e-mails with me? Unless someone is up to no good, eh? Surely your business is as "pure" as Science?
When did we drop the "privacy is a human right" mantra on Slashdot? I really miss that. Scientists are humans. Their work should be public if it was paid by the public. Their work should be public if they wish for it to be peer reviewed. But what purpose does opening up their communication hold? If they really wanted to be "up to no good" surely they would merely find another way to communicate than the e-mails that are published? Will this solve anything? Scientists are humans, not slaves. E-mails about picking their kid up from soccer at a time and place should be kept private, even if they use their work e-mail. E-mails where they call a colleague bad names in confidence to a lab assistant should be kept private. Etc. Etc.
If their work involved wrong doing then it should be presented as evidence in court regardless of who paid for it. My biggest concern here is when these court investigations of scientists are politically motivated witch hunts [slashdot.org].
Nice straw man.
He's not trying to convince you to spend trillions of dollars on something.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If you're "correcting" the raw data - you'd damn well better provide that raw data, and the method(s) used to correct it. Along with the reason(s).
And if it can't withstand daylight - it's suspect.
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
Research data has to be shared for the sake of peer review. But the main problem I see with totally public access is that the public aren't ready for it. In a public arena where people jump on evolutionists for using the word 'theory', or pull all sorts of quotes out of context from leaked climate research emails, publication will just lead to a massive and distracting shitstorm that all scientists want to avoid.
It's fine to ask scientists to show their working, but what's usually being asked in these cases is for scientists to expose all the minutiae of their thinking, their process of coming up with hypotheses, and so on, most of which is irrelevant to the final produce of Evidence->Conclusion. And really, no one can work in such an environment where you have to guard all your words and thoughts carefully lest someone picks it out at some later date. It would be a hugely oppressive work environment, subjected to a group of people who are generally kinda private individuals. Even the Soviet Union understood that they need to afford these people a little privacy.
Re:public scientists should not hide data (Score:5, Insightful)
No certain scientist want to keep their data hidden. Sorry, if you are public ally funded then show your data.. if you are advocating policies and tion based on your findings. You better show your data and methods for scrutiny.
Just to be perfectly 100% clear: this has nothing, in any way, shape, or form, anything whatsoever to do with the data or methods.
This is about the personal communications and rough drafts between the scientists. You know, the emails you send saying "Hey John could you take a look at "x" again, I want to know what you personally think?" or "Wanna go out for a beer later?" or "What do you think of the phrasing of "y"?"Stuff that has nothing to do with the science at all, but which could easily be cherry-picked by someone with a motive (and BP has one hell of a motive) to discredit someones work and/or reputation, with no chance for them to defend themselves. Some of it might be completely wrong and have been thrown out in the end results, yet could be trumpeted as part of the final answer by an interested party (even if that is a lie, some people would do exactly that).
So yes, it should probably stay hidden: it's irrelevant, and even if it was, letting (basically) only one side rip into it is completely biased.
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it's funded with my taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think you have a right to watch people take a shit in publicly funded bathrooms?
Re:If it's funded with my taxpayer dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you are a medicare or social security recipient, we have a right to see your medical records.
If you drive on a public road subsidized by tax payer dollars, we have a right to see where you drive at all times.
If you breath air protected by tax payer dollars, we have a right to measure every molecule of air that comes in and out of your pie hole.
Sounds fair.
Re:And What Horrible Things Are You Up To? (Score:4, Insightful)
"And if it can't withstand daylight - it's suspect."
Says the anonymous coward.
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that is one of the big reasons they do stuff like this. The cost of sorting through the emails and redacting personal information is probably significant, so BP is saying 'give us the results we want, or we will make you spend months and maybe millions redacting stuff no one will read'. Pure punishment.
Re:If you receive public dollars to do research... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientist 2 email: "Ya, it was a little messy, I didn't explain it clearly. Here you go"
Scientist 1 email: "A yes, I see what you're seeing now."
Group opposed to Scientist 1 and 2's work subpoenas their emails, public hears this:
Group releases only Scientist 1's first email.
Group: "See Scientist 1 says the data doesn't support their claims. They're lying, follow the money" and so on.
Re:If you receive public dollars to do research... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there are people like James O'Keefe around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy [wikipedia.org] who aren't interested in science, and don't even understand the science, but want to use information to damage their opponents in elections.
One of the problems with the East Anglia climate change emails was that people who didn't understand (or care about) the science took snippits out of context and used them in misleading and defamatory ways. For example, they seized on the term "trick", and claimed that it meant that he was trying to deceive people, when actually it was referring to a mathematical trick. Those scientists lost about 2 years defending themselves against baseless accusations.
Scientist don't want to spend hundreds of hours fending off phone calls and ambush journalists from Fox News. That's not the open process of science, it's just harassment by people who don't intend to give you a fair hearing in the first place, and don't understand or care about the science.
A lot of times, these people are working for corporations or industries that are trying to attack the science even when they know that the science is right.
A lot of times, as in the lead poisoning cases, these requests can lead to legal depositions, where in addition to hundreds of hours of time, they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. And they don't get the legal fees back from the other side.
Re:Emails are not peer reviewed science (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're suing them and this lets them shield the e-mail to their lab tech that says "sample set B is really screwing up our results, go ahead and shred any copies you have and I'll update the findings."
Companies do this too (Score:4, Insightful)
The organization I work for (which shall go nameless so I can continue to get my paycheck) has this same issue: lots of documents, emails, and the like express opinions and emotions that may not reflect accurately upon the final product. They might even (typically incorrectly) indicate the product is unsafe or dangerous. As you might expect, lawyers in lawsuits LOVE to find those emails and documents. Our corporate solutions? Destroy all documents after about 90 days that are not deemed business critical. The emails and the like just get wiped out. It has vastly reduced the corporate risk. Though, we also regularly have classes about how important it is to avoid emotional emails with words like "failure" and "disaster" in them. Often, the lawyer-speak in these meetings is hilarious. HIghly recommended as a way to ease into your Monday morning.
Re:And What Horrible Things Are You Up To? (Score:4, Insightful)
E-mails about picking their kid up from soccer at a time and place should be kept private, even if they use their work e-mail. E-mails where they call a colleague bad names in confidence to a lab assistant should be kept private.
How do you handle NDAs? I make microwave amplifiers. In my daydream, I come up with a way to make the Worlds Best 1420 MHz preamp. For irrelevant business reasons I'm not able to capitalize on it or even afford the legal docs to patent. But I'll sell my one and only prototype to Big Ole Radio Telescope.gov outta the goodness of my heart and if they sign the usual NDA, I'll email discuss how to properly install it. Their emails get released because a bunch of cranks believe the world was created in 4000 BC so any discussion of stuff more than 6000 light years away is blasphemous hate speech they must use the legal system to stamp out. My signed NDAs can't keep my amplifier secret; I'm pissed.
At a research lab, this is not as far fetched as you might think.
Re:And What Horrible Things Are You Up To? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to see all of your bank statements from the past 36 months. I need these to know you aren't an oil company shill. Also, a key to the front door of your house, just so I can check to see if you have piles of cash that they might have given you to avoid scrutiny of your bank account. You can withstand daylight, so this shouldn't be a problem, right?
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would science have something to hide?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is dedicated to the idea that the observer doesn't change the observation. That a scientific fact isn't just observable by liberals but also by conservatives. That the math used to reach a conclusion should be visible to all and not pruned to reach a specific conclusion.
Any emails that legitimately show pruning of data towards a thesis or biasing of tests towards a thesis are not matters of science privacy. They are a matter of charlatans pretending to be scientists and should not be protected using the argument that science is important and needs to be able to keep its privacy.
That said lawyers shouldn't be the ones filtering even the most corrupt of charlatans out of the scientific community.
Re:Helping to Keep it Secret... (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is this failure to put sufficient pressure on someone who's results just can't be reproduced to prove their stuff in any context relevant to the topic at hand? Or are you suggesting that this fraud could have been spotted easier by sifting though everyone's correspondence looking for "sumethin' off"?
The problem in your anecdote, in case you can't spot it, has nothing to do with Schoen's correspondence, and everything to do with prestige. People not daring to admit they can't reproduce the results of the big star, and not daring asking uncomfortable questions, and not daring/being able to request answers to questions raised to a satisfactory degree. Seriously, either he could reproduce the results in a satisfactory manner or tell those who tried what they did wrong - which in turn should produce identical results - or he couldn't. If you fail at this, getting someones working materials won't help. Ever. It's just a red herring used by people digging for dirt.