Mary admires the NIH-funded work of her postdoctoral advisor, Henryk, who pioneers research on alternative treatments for fever due to infectious diseases. Mary is one of many co-workers who has assisted Henryk in compiling the most comprehensive database ever assembled, tracking many different infectious agents, species of animals, and different interventions and their outcomes. Henryk’s interpretation of this rich dataset suggests that some “alternative medicines” are highly effective in certain species, but have no therapeutic value in others. He is completing his analysis and interpretation, and is preparing a manuscript for submission. Mary will be a co-author because of her part in collecting data for the study.
Mary is preparing to seek an Assistant Professor position and wants to build on her postdoctoral work. She asks Henryk for permission to use the dataset to develop her own project. However, she plans to use a different methodology for analysis and interpretation of the dataset to address a different aspect of the outcomes of treatment. At that point, she will develop a career development proposal to submit to the NIH.
Henryk is unwilling to share the entire dataset prior to publishing his interpretation of these data. However, Mary has access to the database as part of her current project, and therefore she decides that it is ethical for her to look more closely at the data. Mary spends quite a lot of time looking at the data and Henryk’s analysis, and realizes that he has excluded specific datapoints that impact his interpretation. Henryk’s draft manuscript carefully justifies the exclusion of these data in the methods section so that there is no issue with data falsification.
Mary realizes that if she includes these datapoints, an entirely new understanding of therapies to treat fever could emerge. Mary is excited about her impending grant proposal, but is concerned about how to broach the discussion of her use of the data with Henryk.
Discussion Questions
- Must Henryk share his database with Mary before publication? After publication? Must he share it with others, outside his lab, and if so, when?
- Who owns the database at this point: Henryk? The institution? NIH? The public?
- Why is sharing a dataset beneficial to the person who collected it? How is it potentially risky?
- Is Henryk obligated to document how datapoints were included or excluded in the methods section of his paper?
- Henryk’s obligation to share the database with Mary or others depends on several factors, including ethical considerations, data ownership, and scientific norms:
- Ethical Considerations: While there is no strict requirement for Henryk to share the entire database with Mary before publication, ethical considerations in scientific research often favor collaboration and data sharing among colleagues. Given that Mary has contributed to the dataset’s collection and is planning to use it for her own research, it would be considered ethical for Henryk to consider her request for access or collaboration.
- Data Ownership: The ownership of the database may depend on institutional policies and agreements. If the data was collected with NIH funding, there may be requirements for data sharing as part of the funding agreement. In such cases, Henryk may have an obligation to share the data with others, including Mary, after publication.
- Scientific Norms: In many scientific fields, it is common practice to share data after publication to promote transparency and further research. Henryk may choose to share the dataset with Mary and others in the scientific community once his manuscript is published, as this can enhance the credibility of his research and foster collaboration.
- Data ownership can be a complex issue, and it may depend on institutional policies, funding agreements, and specific agreements between Henryk and his co-workers. In general:
- If the data was collected with NIH funding, there may be requirements for data sharing outlined in the funding agreement, which could affect ownership and access.
- The institution where the research was conducted may have policies regarding data ownership. It’s possible that the institution retains some ownership rights.
- In some cases, datasets generated using public funds, like NIH grants, may be considered a public resource to some extent. However, specific ownership and access rights would need to be clarified through agreements or institutional policies.
- Sharing a dataset can be beneficial to the person who collected it for several reasons:
- Collaboration: Sharing data encourages collaboration with other researchers, which can lead to new insights, increased productivity, and the potential for co-authored publications.
- Verification and Reproducibility: Sharing data allows others to verify and reproduce your findings, increasing the credibility of your research.
- Maximizing Impact: Wider data sharing can lead to greater visibility and impact of one’s research, as more researchers can build upon the dataset.
- Ethical Responsibility: Some funding agencies and journals require data sharing as an ethical responsibility to promote transparency and scientific progress.
However, sharing data can also be risky, as it may expose the data owner to issues like data misinterpretation, loss of control over how the data is used, or competition in publishing similar findings.
- Yes, Henryk is generally obligated to document how data points were included or excluded in the methods section of his paper. Transparent and well-documented methods are essential for scientific integrity and replicability. This allows readers and other researchers to understand how the data were processed and interpreted, and it helps ensure that the research can be independently verified and reproduced. If Henryk excluded specific data points from his analysis, he should provide clear justifications for those exclusions in the methods section to maintain transparency and trust in the research.