Progress in Biomedical Sciences and Raw Data: Ethical Dilemmas
How do we assure that a scientific result is sound, that no fraud has been committed and we do guarantee scientific progress in this new era of big scientific data? In order to guarantee reproducibility, especially in the biomedical sciences one need to give access to third parties to analytical datasets (either raw or processed), software used, code developed by the researchers, a very detailed description of the methodology as well as all the relevant metadata. We want to argue that that sharing data is mandatory in order for science to progress. Each published paper should not be seen as an untouchable revealed truth, but as an opportunity of dialogue, confrontation and verification. This can be done only if all raw data are shared and each researcher has the right tools to reproduce an experiment.
KeywordsScientific progress Reproducibility Epistemology of big data Raw data
We would like to thanks Prof. Felicitas Kraemer, for her help and support during the early development of the study.
This work was partially supported by the European Community and the autonomous region of Catalonia through the project sMART-O (2013-BP-B-00096).
- Assembly, U. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.Google Scholar
- Barth Jones, D. (2012) The “re-identification” of governor William Weld’s medical information: A critical re-examination of health data identification risks and privacy protections, then and now.Google Scholar
- Bollen, K., Cacioppo, J. T., Kaplan, R., Krosnick, J., & Olds, J. L. (2015) Social, behavioral, and economic sciences perspectives on robust and reliable science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Campbell, H. (2014, July 13). The corruption of peer review is harming scientific credibility. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
- Casacuberta, D., & Estany, A. (2003). ¿Eureka?: el transfondo de un descubrimiento sobre el cáncer y la genética molecular. Tusquets editores.Google Scholar
- Hughes, L. D. (2014). The state of science and unreliable research. Scottish Universities Medical Journal, 3, s6–s11.Google Scholar
- Macherey, P. (2009). Althusser and the concept of the spontaneous philosophy of scientists. Parrhesia, 6, 14–27.Google Scholar
- Moore, G. E., & Baldwin, T. (1993). Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- SINTEF. (2013, May 22). Big Data – for better or worse. 90% of world’s data generated over the last two years. Last accessed 6/02/2017, from http://www.sintef.no/home/Press-Room/Research-News/Big-Data--for-better-or-worse/
- Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
- The Economist. (2013). Problems with scientific research – How science goes wrong. Last accessed 6/02/2017, from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
- The Scientist. (2013). Fake paper exposes failed peer review. Last accessed 6/02/2017, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37798/title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/
- US Department of Health and Human Service. (2011). 2011 Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2011 (US HHS, 2011). Accessed from http://go.nature.com/t7ykc
- Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., & Malik, M., et al. (2010 ). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351, 637–641 (retracted in Lancet 2010 Feb 2.)Google Scholar