Compelled disclosure of scientific research data

Information Society

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 141-146

  Gardner, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Data sharing; FOIA; Scientific freedom; Scientific responsibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442503562     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01972240490423067     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alberts, B. 1999. Letter to Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 16 July 2002 from http://www.arl.org/info/letters/OMBA110.html
2. American Sociological Association. 2002. American Sociological Association's ethical standards. American Sociological Association. Retrieved 17 May 2002 from www.asanet.org/members/ecostand2.html
3. Angell, M. 1997. Science on trial. The clash of medical evidence and the law in the breast implant case. New York: W. W. Norton.
4. Benhabib, S. 1989-1990. In the shadow of Aristotle and Hegel: Communicative ethics and current controversies in practical philosophy. Philosophical Forum 21:1-31.
5. Bezwoda, W. R., Seymour, L., and Dansey, R. 1995. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: A randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 13:2483-2489.
6. Bisby, F. A. 2000. The quiet revolution: Biodiversity informations and the internet. Science 289:2309-2312.
7. Black, B. 1996. Research and its revelation: When should courts compell disclosure? Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3):169-184.
8. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., and Blumenthal, D. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics. Evidence from a national survey. American Medical Association 287(4):473-480.
9. Cohen, L. R., and Hahn, R. W. 1999. A solution to concerns over public access to scientific data. Science 285(July):535-536.
10. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. 1993. National Collaboratories: Applying information technology for scientific research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Crabb, B. B. 1996. Judicially compelled disclosure of researchers' data: A judge's view. Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3):9-29.
12. Fienberg, S. E. 1994. Sharing statistical data in the biomedical and health sciences: Ethical, legal, and professional dimensions. Annual Review of Public Health 15:1-18.
13. Fienberg, S. E., Martin, M. E., and Straf, M. L. 1985. Sharing research data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. Fischer, P. M. 1996. Science and subpoenas: When do the courts become instruments of manipulation? Law and Contemporary Problems 67:159-167.
15. Gardner, M. J., and Bond, J. 1990. An exploratory study of statistical assessment of papers published in the British Medical Journal. Journal of the American Medical Association 263:1355-1357.
16. Governing Council of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping. 2001. Neuroimaging databases. Science 292:1673-1676.
17. Guston, D. H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Habermas, J. 1992. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Hailey, D. 2000. Scientific harassment by pharmaceutical companies: Time to stop. Canadian Medical Association Journal 162:212-213.
20. Hilts, P. J. 2000. Company tried to bar report that HIV vaccine failed. The New York Times, p. 26.1 November.
21. Hutchon, D. J. 2001. Publishing raw data and real time statistical analysis on e-journals. British Medical Journal 322:530.
22. 6/L CD4 cell counts. Journal of the American Medical Association 284(17):2193-2202.
23. Kolata, G. 1995. Legal system and science come to differing conclusions on silicone. The New York Times 16 May, p. D16.
24. Marshall, E. 2000. Epidemiologists wary of opening up their data. Science 290:28-29.
25. McEvoy, S. A. 1990. "The big chill": Business use of the tort of defamation to discourage the exercise of first amendment rights. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 17(3):503-532.
26. National Institutes of Health. 2002. NIH announces draft statement on sharing research data. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved March 2002 from www.grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-035.html
27. Office of Extramural Research. 1999. Notice of amendment to A-110. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
28. Office of Management and Budget. 1999. Circular A-110. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
29. Office of Management and Budget. 2002. Guidelines for maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by fedeal agencies. Federal Register 67:8452-8460.
30. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2000. Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register 65(235):76260-76264.
31. Olivieri, N., Brittenham, G., McLaren, C., Templeton, D., Cameron, R., McClelland, R., Burt, A., and Fleming, K. 1998. Long-term safety and effectiveness of iron-chelation therapy with deferiprone for thalassemia major. New England Journal of Medicine 339:417-423.
32. O'Neil, R. M. 1996. A researcher's privilege: Does any hope remain? Law and Contemporary Problems 59(3):35-49.
33. Parrish, D. M., and Bruns, D. E. 2002. US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process. Journal of the American Medical Association 287(21):2839-2841.
34. Peto, R. 1987. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Statistics in Medicine 6:233-240.
35. Phillips, R. A., and Hoey, J. 1998. Editorial. Canadian Journal of Medicine 159:955-957.
36. Polanyi, M. 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1(1):54-73.
37. Rennie, D. 1997. Thyroid storm. Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1238-1243.
38. Rowen, L., Wong, G. K., Lane, R. P., and Hood, L. 2000. Intellectual property. Publication rights in the era of open data release policies. Science 289:1881-1882.
39. Rubin, D. B. 1992. Meta-analysis: Literature synthesis or effect-size surface estimation? Journal of Educational Statistics 17:363-374.
40. Shapiro, M. F., and Charrow, R. P. 1989. The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct: Results of the FDA program. Journal of the American Medical Association 261:2505-2511.
41. Smith, G. D., Egger, M., and Phillips, A. N. 1997. Meta-analysis, beyond the grand mean? British Medical Journal 1610-1614.
42. Szalay, A., and Gray, J. 2001. The world-wide telescope. Science 293:2037-2040.
43. Teasley, S., and Wolinsky, S. 2001, Scientific collaborations at a distance. Science 292:2254-2255.
44. Thompson, S. G. 1994. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. British Medical Journal 315(7122):1351-1355.
45. Waldman, T. A. 1992. Slapps suits: Weaknesses in first amendment law and in the courts responses to rivolous litigation. UCLA Law Review 39:979-1053.
46. Weiss, R. B., Rifkin, R. M., Stewart, R M., Theriault, R. L., Williams, L. A., Herman, A. A., and Beveridge, R. A. 2000. High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: An on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 355:999-1003.
47. Weiss, R. B., Vogelzang, N. J., Peterson, B. A., Panasci, L. C., Carpenter, J. T., Gavigan, M., Sartell, K., Frei, E., and McIntyre, R. 1993. A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials: A report from the cancer and leukemia group b. Journal of the American Medical Association 270(4):459-464.
48. Welch, H. G., and Mogielnicki, J. 2002. Presumed benefit: Lessons from the American experience with marrow transplantation for breast cancer. British Medical Journal 324:1088-1092.
49. Wiggins, E., and McKenna, J. 1996. Researchers' reactions to compelled disclosure of scientific information. Law and Contemporary Problems 67:67-92.
50. Winter, G. 2002. Tobacco industry in fight to get universities' data. The New York Times 20 January, p. A15.
51. Zinberg, D. S. 1996. A cautionary tale. Science 273:411.