- From: M. Scott Marshall <mscottmarshall@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:55:09 +0200
- To: HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACHzV2Nt7Ua6yP5GyPMmayUUED-xY4vYCnPRxi1486kBQ-Nw9w@mail.gmail.com>
Many have probably already heard about this debacle in cancer research, where scientists proceeded too quickly from publication to three clinical trials. It's a poster child for data sharing. Of course, there are several social / political factors involved but transparency and clear markup of the data could have prevented at least some of the following problems. With accessible data behind a SPARQL endpoint, colleagues would have been able share their data without introducing errors and misinterpretations. External reviewers would have been able to more easily verify claims. "For example, they saw that in one of their papers Dr Potti and his colleagues had mislabelled the cell lines they used to derive their chemotherapy prediction model, describing those that were sensitive as resistant, and *vice versa*." "Another alleged error the researchers at the Anderson centre discovered was a mismatch in a table that compared genes to gene-expression data. The list of genes was shifted with respect to the expression data, so that the one did not correspond with the other." "The review committee, however, had access only to material supplied by the researchers themselves, and was not presented with either the NCI’s exact concerns or the problems discovered by the team at the Anderson centre." "He noted that in addition to a lack of unfettered access to the computer code and consistent raw data on which the work was based, journals that had readily published Dr Potti’s papers were reluctant to publish his letters critical of the work." Here's the article: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 Of course, a system for attribution (e.g. data contribution) and clear terms of data use attached to the data would also help correct the above scenario. Cheers, Scott P.S. There was a NY Times article about the same problem a few months ago that went too far in its conclusions, essentially calling personalized medicine into question (!) on the basis of the above events. -- M. Scott Marshall http://staff.science.uva.nl/~marshall
Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 13:55:37 UTC