A few weeks ago, the journal PNAS published a paper “PKNOX2 gene is significantly associated with substance dependence in European-origin women”. Unfortunately, the paper inappropriately used embargoed data. In this issue PNAS discusses the fallout of this screwup, and how they dealt with it:
Although the scientific community is often viewed as self-correcting, the system failed for this paper. It appears that not all of the coauthors were aware of the embargo agreement, and the referees and the editors did not know that a serious breach of scientific conduct and NIH policy had taken place. This oversight does a disservice to the SAGE investigators on this National Human Genome Research Institute-funded genetic study of addiction, the other investigators who abided by the NIH embargo, and the scientific community.
The retraction is followed up by an interesting essay on why data-sharing policies matter:
Data from biomedical research are more broadly available to the research community today than in the past. Technical developments, such as web-based databases, have played a role in this transition, but so has a fundamental shift in the view of who “owns” research data. The model of the investigator owning data has been increasingly replaced by one in which society owns data.
…
Wide access to data benefits the research community and society. We must all play an active role in protecting the rights of both research participants and principal investigators if this important practice is to flourish.