Data Withholding in Genetics and the Other Life Sciences: Prevalences and Predictors

Abstract

Data withholding is common in biomedical science, takes multiple forms, is influenced by a variety of characteristics of investigators and their training, and varies by field of science. Encouraging openness during the formative experiences of young investigators may be critical to increased data sharing, but the effects of formal training do not appear straightforward.

Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies

“…There is also substantial empirical evidence that university researchers are becoming more secretive and less willing to share research results or materials [31][32][33][34][35][36]22]. The causes of this secrecy, however, are still in dispute.…”

“…The causes of this secrecy, however, are still in dispute. In particular, we cannot determine the impact of patents themselves on secrecy, in part because many studies of academic secrecy [31,32,36] use composite measures and, as a result, it is difficult to tease out specific causes thereof. Still, Walsh and Hong (2003) [33] and Walsh, Cho and Cohen (2005) [22] find that patents per se have little effect on discussing on-going research or on sharing of research materials.…”

“…Still, Walsh and Hong (2003) [33] and Walsh, Cho and Cohen (2005) [22] find that patents per se have little effect on discussing on-going research or on sharing of research materials. In contrast, several studies have found that commercial activity, as well as scientific competition and the cost and effort involved in sharing, all have negative effects on open science [22,31,32,36]. Industry funding is also often associated with delayed publication [31,32,37,38].…”

To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists

“…This explanation for withholding behavior provides the rationale for research that focuses on individual-level predictors of information withholding (e.g., Campbell et al 2002, Blumenthal et al 2006). …”

“…1 3 in the leading medical journals has responded to the concern about increasing incentives for secrecy among academic scientists by examining micro-level predictors of withholding behavior (e.g., Blumenthal et al 1997, Campbell et al 2002, Blumenthal et al 2006. By focusing on individual activities and attributes, such as engagement in commercial activities (e.g., Campbell et al 2002), these studies imply that scientists' decisions to withhold or share information are determined by their individual interests.…”