“Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast to Jones “standard practice” statement“. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes a general mom-and-apple pie statement in response to a request from the Parliamentary inquiry similar to the Institute of Physics just made. Anthony considers this another damning judgement. My translation: Yes, yes, t’s must be crossed and i’s must be dotted. Now leave us alone, you bitter letter-writing obsessive paranoids!
I do like this bit though (emphasis mine):
Authors generally protect their data until it has been peer-reviewed and published in a formal publication due to the competitive nature of research.
and this bit:
The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable backing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreements occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion.
2010-03-07 Update: I missed this enlightening excerpt from the RSC statement, but Rabbet Run didn’t.
Encouraging scientists to openly engage with the public can only be achieved if researchers are given the necessary backing in the face of any unfounded arguments against their work.