Why is Scientific Data "confidential"

[ihopehefails]

Part of the scientific process is to allow other scientist and the public to review the data of that any scientist discovers yet in some of the emails about climate change says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review. Shouldn't we have been a little suspicious when data that is used is "confidential" or secret from the public?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well, we don't "peer-review" emails. We peer review scientific work. Big difference.
However, there is no need (imho) to keep ANY secrets on this issue.

 

[Ravi]

Part of the scientific process is to allow other scientist and the public to review the data of that any scientist discovers yet in some of the emails about climate change says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review. Shouldn't we have been a little suspicious when data that is used is "confidential" or secret from the public?

Can you show us the email that says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review.

Thanks.

 

[xsited1]

Part of the scientific process is to allow other scientist and the public to review the data of that any scientist discovers yet in some of the emails about climate change says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review. Shouldn't we have been a little suspicious when data that is used is "confidential" or secret from the public?

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

 

[Coyote]

Part of the scientific process is to allow other scientist and the public to review the data of that any scientist discovers yet in some of the emails about climate change says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review. Shouldn't we have been a little suspicious when data that is used is "confidential" or secret from the public?

What emails?

 

[saveliberty]

Confidential Climate Report
Eyes Only

Reduction in the polar bear population has been determined to be an increase in health care funded abortions for polar bears.

Those sun spot thingys really do effect temperature and radio waves.

The Air Force needs to stop aiming those missile defense satellites at ice caps.

We estimate the general population will stop believing in global warming in the next two winters.

Al Gore is writing checks he can't cash.

We need more data shredding equipment.

This message will not self-destruct quickly enough.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

And this is a large part of what is currently wrong with science.

 

[ihopehefails]

Part of the scientific process is to allow other scientist and the public to review the data of that any scientist discovers yet in some of the emails about climate change says that all data should be "confidential" so that no one can do a peer review. Shouldn't we have been a little suspicious when data that is used is "confidential" or secret from the public?

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

Were these scientist working for a private company? No so that scenario doesn't apply.

I can't imagine whey in Academia why anyone would keep data secret especially when you want to prove your hypothesis to other scientist but since they were not in a university trying to get funding then that scenario doesn't apply either.

Next...

 

[ihopehefails]

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

And this is a large part of what is currently wrong with science.

Confidential data should have been a red flag because most scientist are pretty open about their data.

 

[Diuretic]

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

And this is a large part of what is currently wrong with science.

Yep but it was a damn sight worse under Stalin with Lysenkoism.

 

[Diuretic]

Not necessarily. If a scientist is working for a company, some of the research may be deemed confidential for obvious reasons. This is common practice. In academia, the same thing happens except that the competitors are other scientists trying to get a piece of the funding 'pie'. If you publish all your findings, another scientist may take your research, expand on it and get funding that you might have otherwise received.

And this is a large part of what is currently wrong with science.

Confidential data should have been a red flag because most scientist are pretty open about their data.

As has been pointed out (not by me) there are good reasons why this doesn't occur now. Anyway, professional envy lives in science like it does everywhere else I would think.

 

[ihopehefails]

And this is a large part of what is currently wrong with science.

Confidential data should have been a red flag because most scientist are pretty open about their data.

As has been pointed out (not by me) there are good reasons why this doesn't occur now. Anyway, professional envy lives in science like it does everywhere else I would think.

There are good reasons but when you have to prove something and ask for the data to back up your claims then that confidentiality shouldn't be there especially when people are skeptical about the results.

 

[Diuretic]

Confidential data should have been a red flag because most scientist are pretty open about their data.

As has been pointed out (not by me) there are good reasons why this doesn't occur now. Anyway, professional envy lives in science like it does everywhere else I would think.

There are good reasons but when you have to prove something and ask for the data to back up your claims then that confidentiality shouldn't be there especially when people are skeptical about the results.

And that's fair enough. If someone else can't replicate a study or experiment using the same methods then it would definitely call into question the alleged results. That's all about keeping it honest. If I say I've found a way to create cold fusion then everyone else should be able to do the same if I give them all my experimental data. Then they can all create cold fusion. And then...oh hell....I just gave them.....

Bit of a quandary isn't it?

Is there an answer to this?

Yo, the science types - help me out here!

 

[Ravi]

Where is the email in question, dude?

 

[Ravi]

And what data was kept secret? Methinks you are full of shit.

 

[editec]

Much ado about nothing

We could carefelly take William Joyce's words out of context from this board and prove that he loves Isreal and the Black race, too.

 

[slackjawed]

Scientific data for profit has always been confidential. two words......tobacco institute.