Data and the Greater Good

"Sacrifice for the greater good?" Editorial. Nature. 421:6926 (February 27, 2003).

For this week I read an editorial on the topic of data sharing in Nature. The article commented on a recent (2003) closed meeting held in Fort Lauderdale regarding data sharing in the field of genomics. The editorial reported that the genomics researchers at this meeting expressed the desire for immediate deposition of data sets and unconditional access to those data sets, even if this means that the originator of the data loses priority over that data. In other words, once data was submitted anyone could access and download it, and anyone could publish from it, even if they scooped the originators. (This relates to data produced by publicly funded projects). Any attempt to impose licensing agreements to prevent the originators to lose publishing priority would not be allowed, and centers that tried to impose such licenses would not be eligible for funding. Such immediate and open access, they contend, is in the interest of the greater good and the advancement of science.

Not only do these genome researchers want these principles to apply to their own corner of the scientific community, they desire that these ideals of data sharing apply throughout the world of biology. The Fort Lauderdale proposal suggests "that any project where a 'community resource' is the objective should subject itself to the same principles of immediate release without conditions." The author of the editorial reports that these ideals are definitely not accepted by all in the scientific community. These principles, the author writes, are great if you're a top name in your field and don't really have to worry about losing out on funding, publication priority, and reputation if your data is scooped, but not so great if you are a scientist who is less favored, or just starting out in your field, and need the benefits that the traditional system of peer-reviewed publication gives. The Fort Lauderdale proposal does offer a way to give credit to data originators, however. They suggest that gene sequencers publish statements of intent describing the analysis they planned to do with the data. This would provide "a citable means of giving them credit" even if they are scooped when it comes to publishing a full-length article. The author of the editorial questions whether such a system would compensate for the loss of publication priority protection, and whether there would still be any incentive to engage in data generation.

The author also takes issue with the idea that funding agencies would insist on the adoption of the principle of immediate data deposition with loss of priority. The author fears that such "coercion" may cause gene sequencers to shy away from public funding. With regard to journals, the author feels that it is the job of journal editors not to take part in coercing scientists into depositing their data, as, for example, by refusing to review articles whose authors have not deposited their data at the time of submission. The editorial also asserts that it is the job of editors and peer reviewers to "do what they can" to ensure that sufficient credit is given to data originators, with the caveat that "if a good piece of whole-genome analysis arrives on our desks, we'll publish it whoever it comes from."