That is, what matters most to a researcher is to get published; to get his name on a paper; to get that recognition from his peers - rather than to make available the underlying data on which his article is based.
And in the case of data about the flu, it could be life-threatening not to make that database available, according to the guest on the podcast.
Some companies have two sets of data - one set of data which they make available to the public, and another set of data which is kept within the company.
This culture is driven by commercial interests on the part of the companies; and by professional interests on the part of the writing researchers/scientists.
I thought: if the danger of this culture in the scientific community (the culture of not making available the underlying data on which a published paper is based) is a danger to human life (in the case of not making data about the flu available), then the danger of this culture in other matters - such as in geological history, cosmological history, biology, or life-history (or the origin of species) could be misinformation or at least misinterpretation of the data.
The average scientist, academic or member of the public doesn't get to see much of the data on which many of the theories and assertions are based in these fields. So how can we assess the interpretation of the data? We can't really.
Aside from commercial and personal professional interests being behind the creation of that culture, a researcher's own philosophy could also be affecting his interpretation of the data, and affecting the assertions he makes in a published article - yet we wouldn't even know!
It's like when I was sitting maths, physics or chemistry exams at school - we were required not only to give an answer, but also to show our working, to show how we arrived at that answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment