Covid-19/

Getting under the skin of Science: sharing data in research

Read time: 3 mins

‘‘If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’’. It is nearly impossible to describe the essential role of sharing results and ideas for research progress better than Isaac Newton. Three centuries later, the importance of sharing knowledge is made even more compelling by the increased rapidity with which data are produced and the enormous possibilities for their dissemination created by Internet. Certainly, there is now wide consensus in the scientific community about the importance of achieving an effective, responsible and robust form of data sharing. However, one critical step is still lacking: “You cannot manage what you do not measure” says a famous adage! We need to know to what extent and in what ways data are actually shared, an effort which may help identify critical aspects and develop strategies which are better suited to scientific practices. 

The gap is beginning to be filled thanks to a study carried out by Giovanni Destro Bisol of the Sapienza University of Roma and his collaborators. They have chosen to carry out a detailed analysis of data sharing in studies on human genetic variation. The relative simplicity of information coded by DNA along with the availability of online resources for data archiving /downloading and the possible outcomes in matters regarding human health make this research field a perfect forerunner in the attempt to arrive at complete data sharing.

The study has analyzed a total of 543 genetic datasets reported in papers indexed by the popular Pubmed database, covering the 2008-2011 period. Contrary to the positive expectations, a substantial portion of datasets (21.9%) was found to have been withheld. Even worse, limiting the research to the the Journals or which are the most cited or adopt an explicit editorial policy in favor of data sharing, the rate failed to  increase beyond 80.5%.

So, what can be done to improve  data sharing? The study shows … in three steps… how getting under the skin of scientific practice may help find remedies.

The authors experienced a very low rate of positive responses to e-mail requests sent to corresponding authors of withheld datasets (28.6%). This suggests that once the “magic moment” of paper acceptance has passed, it becomes difficult to convince authors to make their data fully available. It follows that sharing should be regarded as a prerequisite for final paper acceptance,  rather than a recommendation. Making authors deposit their results in open online databases which provide data quality control seems to provide the best-practice standard.

Furthermore, researchers observed a substantially lower sharing in medical compared to evolutionary and forensic genetics. Potential conflicts with privacy issues and commercial interests may account for this evidence. The former problem could be counteracted by developing informed consent forms  that do not preclude further development of the studies, which could be better pursued by getting participants more involved in the research design and realization. For the latter, it may be useful to limit the use of patenting and royalties for research tools, which seems appropriate especially when the work is supported by public funds.

Finally, the study provides the first estimate of research funding used to produce withheld data, an astonishing 30% of total resources. By making the scientific community and taxpayers aware of this important aspect, we may help popularize a more effective culture of data sharing in human genetic studies and other research fields.

Milia M, Congiu A, *Anagnostou P, Montinaro F, Capocasa M, Sanna E & Destro-Bisol G. Mine, yours, ours? sharing data on human genetic variation. Plos One,  June 5th 2012. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037552

Aiuta Scienza in Rete a crescere. Il lavoro della redazione, soprattutto in questi momenti di emergenza, è enorme. Attualmente il giornale è interamente sostenuto dall'Editore Zadig, che non ricava alcun utile da questa attività, se non il piacere di fare giornalismo scientifico rigoroso, tempestivo e indipendente. Con il tuo contributo possiamo garantire un futuro a Scienza in Rete.

E' possibile inviare i contributi attraverso Paypal cliccando sul pulsante qui sopra. Questa forma di pagamento è garantita da Paypal.

Oppure attraverso bonifico bancario (IBAN: IT78X0311101614000000002939 intestato a Zadig srl - UBI SCPA - Agenzia di Milano, Piazzale Susa 2)

altri articoli

Antartide sopra i 2°C: punto di non ritorno?

antartide

All’inizio del 2020 le temperature nell’Antartico hanno superato per la prima volta i 20°C e questa non è in alcun modo una buona notizia. Uno studio pubblicato su Nature stima che, restando sotto i 2°C di aumento della temperatura globale media per fine secolo, avremmo almeno circa 1.3 metri di mare in più. Se dovessimo superare i 2°C, si arriverebbe anche a 2.4 metri (per ogni grado in più).

Immagine: Pixabay License.

Un cubetto di ghiaccio in un bicchiere d’acqua, se si scioglie, non contribuisce a far innalzare il livello del liquido. Questo è facilmente verificabile applicando le note leggi di Archimede. Allo stesso modo, non è il ghiaccio galleggiante, come gli iceberg, che determina l’aumento del livello del mare, ma, come sappiamo, i ghiacci continentali. L’Antartide ha un’estensione di circa 14 milioni di km2, un volume di quasi 27 milioni di km3 e detiene più della metà delle risorse di acqua dolce della Terra.