Abstract
The recent paper on redaction in scientific studies confirms concern for the complete availability of study data, especially in commercial drug research, 2 as previously expressed in correspondence. 1 Scientific publication about pharmaceutical and medical device products also carries implications for public health and financial gain, and so begs neutral assessment in view of the related politics. A widespread mistrust of commercially funded research has developed, largely through the unreflective use of conventional publication mechanisms without recognition of their complex social and clinical consequences. Serious controversy accompanies the publication of scientific work in other areas than drugs and medical devices, for example, the efficacy and safety of vaccines 3 and studies of climate change. 4
Arguably, the incomplete records provided in the modern, economically practical, model of science publication cannot sustain trust of science in the community and a system developed in quieter times is unsuited to the reconciliation of opposed and radical prejudices when they occur.
Scientists have been here before. As explored in ‘Leviathan and the Air Pump’, the scientists of the 17th century, who came to form the Royal Society, were also subject to philosophical, and political, criticism over their empirical work, in an era of societal anxiety and unrest following the English Civil War. 5 They managed by carefully separating the descriptions and methods of experimental work from comment and opinion about its implication. An independent and reliable witnessing of the practical work was an important element. This strategy allowed some decompression of the negative energy that might be directed at assertions of conclusions and claims, making possible their continued pursuit of investigative science. The residue of this history today is the effort to minutely describe methodology in all empirical science. More importantly, it informs, through an identical intuition, the contemporary demand that study data be put to impartial and neutral examination.
Every scientific publication is a bid for attention – a marketing of sorts. The caveat venditor imperative extends well beyond the need to maintain reputation when topics are controversial, insofar as an unconvincing case may be socially provocative and confusing. Just what rides on the pitch of any publication is highly variable and should not be confounded or even amplified by the conventions of publication. 6
It is worth then considering a two-fold change in the settlement 6 that has evolved for contemporary science publication: (1) a commitment to transparency of study data; and (2) the more novel conception of making a clear separation of study results from comments and recommendations, especially where current social and political prejudices are at issue. 7 The technology is available for accomplishing the separation of study results from opinion and other commentary based on values for use by motivated government regulatory agencies and by science journals as condition for publication. 8 A fundamental reassessment of current conference and debating forums internationally would complement that strategic change.
The commitment to transparency of study data, at least, is long overdue.