Show
Implicit in having control over access to data is the ability to share data with colleagues that promote advancement in a field of investigation (the notable exception to the unqualified sharing of data would be research involving human subjects). Scofield (1998) suggest replacing the term ‘ownership’ with ‘stewardship’, “because it implies a broader responsibility where the user must consider the consequences of making changes over ‘his’ data”. According to Garner (1999), individuals having intellectual property have rights to control intangible objects that are products of human intellect. The range of these products encompasses the fields of art, industry, and science. Research data is recognized as a form of intellectual property and subject to protection by U.S. law. Importance of data ownership: According to Loshin (2002), data has intrinsic value as well as having added value as a byproduct of information processing, “at the core, the degree of ownership (and by corollary, the degree of responsibility) is driven by the value that each interested party derives from the use of that information”. The general consensus of science emphasizes the principle of openness (Panel Sci. Responsib. Conduct Res. 1992). Thus, sharing data has a number of benefits to society in general and protecting the integrity of scientific data in particular. The Committee on National Statistics’ 1985 report on sharing data (Fienberg, Martin, Straf, 1985) noted that sharing data reinforces open scientific inquiry, encourages a diversity of analyses and conclusions, and permits:
The cost and benefits of data sharing should be viewed in ethical, institutional, legal, and professional dimensions. Researchers should clarify at the beginning of a project if data can or cannot be shared, under what circumstances, by and with whom, and for what purposes. Considerations/issues in data ownershipResearchers should have a full understanding of various issues related to data ownership to be able to make better decisions regarding data ownership. These issues include paradigm of ownership, data hoarding, data ownership policies, balance of obligations, and technology. Each of these issues gives rise to a number of considerations that impact decisions concerning data ownership Paradigm of Ownership – Loshin (2002) alludes to the complexity of ownership issues by identifying the range of possible paradigms used to claim data ownership. These claims are based on the type and degree of contribution involved in the research endeavor. Loshin (2002) identifies a list of parties laying a potential claim to data:
Data Hoarding This practice is considered antithetical to the general norms of science emphasizing the principle of openness. Factors influencing the decision to withhold access to data could include (Sieber, 1989):
Data Ownership Policies Institutional policies lacking specificity, supervision, and formal documentation can increase the risk of compromising data integrity. Before research is initiated, it is important to delineate the rights, obligations, expectations, and roles played by all interested parties. Compromises to data integrity can occur when investigators are not aware of existing data ownership policies and fail to clearly describe rights, and obligations regarding data ownership. Listed below are some scenarios between interested parties that warrant the establishment of data ownership policies
Balance of obligations Investigators must learn to negotiate the delicate balance that exists between an investigator’s willingness to share data in order to facilitate scientific progress, and the obligation to employer/sponsor, collaborators, and students to preserve and protect data (Last, 2003). Signed agreements of nondisclosure between investigators and their corporate sponsors can circumvent efforts to publish data or share with colleagues. However, in some cases as with human participants data sharing may not be allowed due to confidentiality reasons. Technology Advances in technology have enabled investigators to explore new avenues of research, enhance productivity, and use data in ways unimagined before. However, careless application of new technologies has the potential to create a slew of unanticipated data ownership problems that can compromise research integrity. The following examples highlight data ownership issues resulting from the careless application of technology:
References Cios, K. J., Moore, G. W. (2002). Uniqueness of medical mining. Artif Intell Med (Artificial intelligence in medicine), 26(1-2): 1-24. de Witte, J. I. & Welie, J. V. (1997). The status of genetic material and genetic information in The Netherlands. Soc Sci Med (Social Science & Medicine (1982), 45(1): 45-9. Fienberg, S. E., Martin, M.E., Straf, M.L. (1985). Sharing Research Data. Washington , DC: National Acad. Press. Fishbein, E. A. (1991). Ownership of research data. Academic Medicine, 66(3), 129-33. Foote, M. (2003). Review of current authorship guidelines and the controversy regarding publication of clinical data. Biotechnol Annu Rev (Biotechnology annual review), 9: 303-13. Garner, B. A. (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary, 7 th edition. West Group, St. Paul, MN. Last, R. L. (2003). Sandbox ethics in science: sharing of data and materials in plant biology. Plant Physiol (Plant physiology.), 132(1): 17-8. Loshin, D. (2002). Knowledge Integrity: Data Ownership (Online) June 8, 2004 http://www.datawarehouse.com/article/?articleid=3052 Panel Sci. Responsib. Conuct Res. (1992). Responsible Science. Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. 1. Comm. Sci. Eng. Public Policy. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press. Scofield, M. (1998). Issues of Data Ownership (online), retrieved June 10, 2004 http://www.dmreview.com/editorial/dmreview/print_action.cfm?articleId=296Shamoo, A. E., Resnik, D. B. (2002). Intellectual Property. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Sieber, J. E. (1989). Sharing scientific data I: new problems for IRBs. IRB (IRB; a Review of Human Subjects Research), 11(6): 4-7. Steneck, N. H. (2003). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Department of Health and Human Services. Veronesi, J. F. (1999). Ethical issues in computerized medical records. Crit Care Nurs Q (Critical Care Nursing Quarterly), 22(3): 75-80. Wiesenthal, D. L., Wiener, N. I. (1996). Privacy and the Human Genome Project. Ethics Behav (Ethics & Behavior), 6(3): 189-202.
What is the most appropriate process for research collaborators?What is the most appropriate process for research collaborators to use in determining which journal they should submit their work to? The research team should discuss the issue early on and while the project is ongoing.
Which of the following is true regarding academic industry collaborations quizlet?Which of the following is true regarding academic-industry collaborations? The industry sponsor typically owns the data from research that it funds.
What is the main function of the Bayh Dole Act of 1980 as it relates to academic institutions quizlet?What is the main function of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 as it relates to academic institutions? Your answer : It allows institutions to have control over the intellectual property from federally-funded research.
Which of the following is the primary criterion for authorship quizlet?Which of the following is the primary criterion for authorship? Having made a significant intellectual contribution to the work.
|