Search

Purpose: To provide the first national data on the nature, extent, and consequences of withholding among life science trainees., Method: In 2003, the authors surveyed 1,077 second-year doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows in life sciences at 50 U.S. universities, with a comparison group of trainees in computer science and chemical engineering. The study variables examined trainees' exposure to and the consequences of data withholding., Results: Two hundred forty-six trainees (23.0%) reported that they had asked for and been denied access to information, data, materials, or programming associated with published research and 221 (20.6%) to unpublished research. Eighty-five trainees (7.9%) reported that they had denied another academic scientist's request(s) related to their own published research. Five hundred thirty-three trainees (50.8%) reported that withholding had had a negative effect on the progress of their research, 508 (48.5%) on the rate of discovery in their lab/research group, 472 (45.0%) on the quality of their relationships with academic scientists, 346 (33.0%) on the quality of their education, and 299 (28.5%) on the level of communication in their lab/research group. Trainees denied access to research were significantly more likely to report that data withholding had had a negative effect on several aspects of the educational experience., Conclusions: Data withholding had demonstrated negative effects on trainees. The life sciences, more so than chemical engineering or computer science, will have to address this issue among its trainees. Failure to do so could result in delayed research, inefficient training, and a culture of withholding among future life scientists.

Purpose: To better understand the variety and prevalence of data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences and to explore factors associated with these behaviors., Method: In 2000, a sample of 2,893 geneticists and other life scientists (OLS) at the 100 most research-intensive universities in the United States were surveyed concerning data withholding and sharing. The instrument was developed and pretested in 1999. The two primary outcome measures were withholding in verbal exchanges with colleagues about unpublished research (verbal withholding) and withholding as part of the publishing process (publishing withholding). The independent variables related to the personal characteristics, research characteristics of faculty, and previous experience with data withholding., Results: A total of 1,849 faculty responded (64%): 1,240 geneticists and 600 OLS. Forty-four percent of geneticists and 32% of OLS reported participating in any one of 13 forms of data withholding in the three previous years. Publishing withholding (geneticists 35%, OLS 25%) was more frequent than verbal withholding (geneticists 23%, OLS 12%). In multivariate analyses, male gender, participation in relationships with industry, mentors' discouraging data sharing, receipt of formal instruction in data sharing, and negative past experience with sharing were significantly associated with either verbal or publishing withholding among either geneticists or OLS., Conclusions: Data withholding is common in biomedical science, takes multiple forms, is influenced by a variety of characteristics of investigators and their training, and varies by field of science. Encouraging openness during the formative experiences of young investigators may be critical to increased data sharing, but the effects of formal training do not appear straightforward.

Purpose: To understand the characteristics of medical school faculty members who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) in U.S. academic health centers., Method: Between October 2001 and March 2002, a questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 4,694 faculty members in 121 four-year medical schools in the United States (excluding Puerto Rico). The sample was drawn from the Association of American Medical College's faculty roster database for 1999. The primary independent variable was service on an IRB. Data were analyzed using standard statistical procedures., Results: A total of 2,989 faculty members responded (66.5%). Eleven percent of respondents reported they had served on an IRB in the three years before the study. Of these, 73% were male, 81% were white (non-Hispanic). Virtually all faculty IRB members (94%) conducted some research in the three years before the study, and, among these, 71% reported conducting clinical research, and 47% served as industrial consultants to industry. Underrepresented minority faculty members were 3.2 times more likely than white faculty members to serve on the IRB. Clinical researchers were 1.64 times more likely to be on an IRB than were faculty members who conducted nonclinical research. No significant difference was found in the average number of articles published in the three years before the study comparing IRB faculty to non-IRB faculty., Conclusions: The faculty members who serve on IRBs tend to have research experience and knowledge that may be used to inform their IRB-related activities. However, the fact that almost half of all faculty IRB members serve as consultants to industry raises potential conflicts of interest.