The New York Times-20080129-A Call for Sharing- -Letter-

Return to: The_New_York_Times-20080129

A Call for Sharing; [Letter]

Full Text (253  words)

To the Editor:

Cancer Data? Sorry, Can't Have It (Essay, Jan. 22): Andrew Vickers hints at a truth known to most physicians with any connection to medical research; the pursuit of academic and scientific prestige is often as important as the potential benefit to patients. There's a simple fix. If the top dozen or so medical journals refused to consider publication of any research results without a pledge from the authors to make the raw data available for follow-up analysis, the problem would disappear.

David R. Bacon, M.D.Aspen, Colo.

To the Editor:

Drug and clinical trials are typically conducted at multiple sites, but only the cumulative results (the net effects) are usually published in medical journals. This publication practice may lead to a spurious causal inference, based on a statistical irony known as Simpson's paradox, in which the net effect is different (sometimes opposite) from what an analysis of the site data could tell us -- if we could have the data.

Ralph L. RosnowRadnor, Penn.

To the Editor:

With the billions of dollars poured into cancer research coupled with the disease remaining among our top killers, it is appalling to think of any scientist withholding data. It is doubtful that individuals undergoing clinical trials would participate if they felt it wasn't for the greater good. If our knowledge and data were pooled, a cure might be found in a much shorter time and at much less cost. The question that must be posed is, And who would that hurt?

Melissa ColeElgin, Tex.