Progress in Biomedical Sciences and Raw Data: Ethical Dilemmas

  • David CasacubertaEmail author
  • Simone Tassani
Conference paper


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.


Scientific 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).


  1. Aggarwal, C. C., & Philip, S. Y. (2008). A general survey of privacy-preserving data mining models and algorithms (pp. 11–52). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assembly, U. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Begley, G. C., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bourne, P. E., & Barbour, V. (2011). Ten simple rules for building and maintaining a scientific reputation. PLOS Computational Biology, 7(6), e1002108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, H. (2014, July 13). The corruption of peer review is harming scientific credibility. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  8. Casacuberta, D., & Estany, A. (2003). ¿Eureka?: el transfondo de un descubrimiento sobre el cáncer y la genética molecular. Tusquets editores.Google Scholar
  9. Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Reports, 9(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). What does research reproducibility mean. Science Translational Medicine, 8(341), 341ps12–341ps12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes, L. D. (2014). The state of science and unreliable research. Scottish Universities Medical Journal, 3, s6–s11.Google Scholar
  13. Macherey, P. (2009). Althusser and the concept of the spontaneous philosophy of scientists. Parrhesia, 6, 14–27.Google Scholar
  14. Moore, G. E., & Baldwin, T. (1993). Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Khusru, A. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1997). Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  19. Sweeney, L. (1997). Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 25, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. The Economist. (2013). Problems with scientific research – How science goes wrong. Last accessed 6/02/2017, from
  21. The Scientist. (2013). Fake paper exposes failed peer review. Last accessed 6/02/2017, from
  22. Thomson, J. J. (1976). A defense of abortion. Biomedical ethics and the law (pp. 39–54). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US Department of Health and Human Service. (2011). 2011 Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2011 (US HHS, 2011). Accessed from
  24. Vasilevsky, N. A., Brush, M. H., Paddock, H., Ponting, L., Tripathy, S. J., et al. (2013). On the reproducibility of science: Unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ, 1, e148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., & Malik, M., et al. (2010 [1988]). 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Information and Communication TechnologiesUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations