The Massachusetts General Hospital, a Harvard teaching affiliate, has just released the latest in a series of publications discussing data withholding, concluding that:
"Data withholding clearly has important negative effects on the integrity of the scientific education system in the U.S."
In some of the medical areas, there are at least occasionally patent or commercial issues. No such excuses exist in climate science.
In 2000, they reported the following:
Secrecy in academic science: young, productive researchers most likely to be denied data
Although open sharing of the results of research is an underlying principle of modern science, the reality is that researchers sometimes withhold the results of their work either by delaying publication in scientific journals or by refusing requests from other researchers for access to data or materials. In the February 2000 issue of Research Policy, researchers from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Institute for Health Policy and Harvard Medical School report a survey of scientists around the country on the topic of data withholding. They found that those most likely to be victims of data withholding were scientists who were just starting out in the profession, those who were highly productive, or those involved with commercial activities. In addition, scientists who had a history of denying their own data to others were more likely to have their requests for information refused.
In 2002, they announced another report:
While it is generally acknowledged that the progress of science depends on the free exchange of resources and knowledge, a new study finds that data, materials and information are often kept secret in academic genetics. "The ability to reproduce science is important," says Eric G. Campbell, Ph.D., of the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Harvard Medical School. "When people don’t share published resources, it may slow the rate of scientific advance." Campbell is first author of the report appearing in the January 23 Journal of the American Medical Association.
Now, again in 2006, they have announced another article in the same vein:
Massachusetts General HospitalStudies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
Relationships with industry, competitive environments associated with research secrecy
Open sharing of information is a basic principle of the scientific process, but it is well known that secrecy has become a fact of life in academic science. Several studies have described how researchers may withhold the results of their studies from other scientists or deny them access to data or materials. In two new reports, researchers from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Institute for Health Policy examine a broader range of withholding behaviors among life scientists than previously reported and describe how data withholding is affecting researchers in several fields during their training years. The papers appear in the February 2006 issue of Academic Medicine."Secrecy in science reduces the efficiency of the scientific enterprise by making it harder for colleagues to build on each other’s work," said David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, director of the Institute for Health Policy. "Secrecy cannot be totally eliminated; but to minimize it, we need to understand it better. That was the purpose of this work."…
"Data withholding clearly has important negative effects on the integrity of the scientific education system in the U.S.," says Eric Campbell, PhD, of the MGH Institute for Health Policy, who led the trainees study. "Failure to address this issue could result in less effective training programs, an erosion of the sense of shared purpose and a general culture of scientific secrecy in the future."
Climate Audit 
10 Comments
Yes, but the only reason you want my data is because you want to discredit it. I refuse to be intimidated into revealing my data to people outside of my own profession. That’s just what people like you want to do. Why haven’t you done your own construction before you start scrutinizing mine? Are you associated with skeptics? The source code is my personal property. My work has already been peer-reviewed in quality scientific journals. Other studies confirm my results. How can you believe that we’ve all collaborated to prevent publication of other reports that pretend to show my work invalid? Are you some kind of paranoid conspiracy nut? These practices are the norm for this scientific discipline. My latest data is password protected until we announce our latest results and to keep it from being misused by big business. Didn’t you co-write with someone who made a calculation error in another paper? Your work has already been discredited in a paper independently written by one of my PhD students. The science is already settled and its time to move on. Just ignore the requests from Congress – they’re not scientists and they’re on the take from big business anyway.
#1 That was a joke, right?
Sadly, it’s more of a summary of what Steve McIntyre has run into.
#2 Are you new to this site Dennis??
Dennis – check this list of actual excuses Top Fifteen Reasons that I posted last March. Also look at my correspondence with Science, Nature, NSF etc. John A has added adjectives in his rendering. I think that the addition is unnecessary and detracts a little from the force of the actual words of the authors, which speak so loudly by themselves.
The cited announcement from 2006 references a study in Academic Medicine. The abstract for that study says the following.
A link to the article is here (WordPress is screwing up hyperlinks for some reason):
http://www.academicmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/2/128
Re: #2,3,4,5
Actually my comment was a concatenation of all the ludicrous excuses given by the Hockey Team in response to perfectly reasonable requests for data and methodology for the purposes of audit and replication, and by acolytes excusing the censorship of contradicting evidence, by implying that Steve and Ross are part of some global conspiracy, or are conspiracy nuts themselves.
All of these excuses come around so frequently, that I wonder if the weblog should have been called “Climate Groundhog Day”
What’s interesting is that witholding data and methodology appears to be rife in other sciences, where in the absence of obvious material reasons, senior researchers feel threatened that some inferior wants to see the basis of their already published work.
John Hunter is a classic example of the genre. This is from comments made on July and Aug 2005:
and
and
and
and
#7. They never cease to amaze, do they?
I am also gobsmacked by his utter dismissal of auditing. His attitude seems to be, I’ve had a couple of my friends look it over. They didn’t find any problems, so the issue is settled.
Yes, many scientists are going behind money than fame. If his discoveries are published in reputed scientific journals, he will get reputation among universities and research institutions for improving his career. But it seems those scientists hiding the data may be trying to get patents for their works in commercial exploitation of his work.