The internet has dramatically changed the way scientists and the public access information. For example, while scientific information about diseases, treatments, and side-effects were previously only accessible to scientists and physicians, a great deal of information on science and medicine is now easily available on to everyone on the web. It seems obvious that the public should have access to this scientific information both because it can allow more informed decisions about personal healthcare, and because a great deal of the research was supported by taxes. Thus, there have been arguments that all scientific data acquired using public funds should be freely available to the public.

However, some scientists find this idea worrisome for several reasons. It demands considerable time and effort to acquire the data for a research project, and once the data is available it may take even more time to sift through the data to uncover the important conclusions. If the data is released before the researchers have been able to thoroughly evaluate it and publish their results, the other scientists may be able to benefit from the data before the researchers who invested so much time and effort in the research. Publication in peer-reviewed journals ensures that the results and conclusions are considered valid by other experts, thereby ensuring that misleading conclusions are not promulgated. There are also concerns that public access to scientific data before the research is complete may result in misinterpretation or misuse by activists -- an issue for both biomedical research and other fields, such as environmental research.  In addition, premature release of data could compromise the ability to patent key findings, diminishing the interests of biotech or pharmaceutical companies that might otherwise use these findings to develop new types of medical therapies. 

Thus, there is an ethical conundrum of “Who owns the data?” Does the public support for research and the potential public benefit outweigh the concerns of some researchers? Could the immediate release of unvalidated data or conclusions actually harm the public? Are there ways that we could resolve this conflict?

Panelist:

• Philip Bourne, PhD. Professor, Pharmacology and Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, UC San Diego; Associate Director, Protein Data Bank; and Founding Editor-in-Chief of the open access journal PLoS Computational Biology
• Aziz Boxwala, MD, PhD. Associate Professor. Head of Section on Clinical Informatics, Division of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego.

Moderator:

• Stan Maloy, PhD, San Diego State University