MariaSanta Mangione (G2), Bradley Reinfeld (M1), and Cody Stothers (M2)
June 1, 2016

Data sharing in response to emergent health crises: an interview

with Dr. James Crowe

 

     Whether describing an emergent disease, developing a vaccine, or selecting a targeted

therapy, intra- and interinstitutional collaboration is vital to expeditiously tackling urgent

biomedical questions. However, many characteristics of academic science restrict scientists’

ability to work cohesively. First, distributing limited financial and biological resources nationally

or globally presents a substantial logistical challenge. Additionally, labs and institutions compete

for funding within a scientific niche, which requires them to demonstrate productivity in the form

of peer-reviewed publications. Peer review, the cornerstone of science, can take months from

paper submission to an accessible publication, many of which are only available through

personal or institutional journal subscriptions. What strategies is the scientific community

implementing to overcome these barriers to improving human health?

 

     The Zika virus response has implemented various policies to facilitate rapid data

sharing. Numerous journals are pledging to provide open access to Zika-related manuscripts

and datasets. In February of this year, the World Health Organization (WHO) released

guidelines to readily consolidate emerging data about the Zika virus into a centrally located and

freely available hub. Scientists are also establishing networks to share genomes and reagents

so that instead of building tools, labs can expend energy investigating critical questions, such as

pathogenesis of Zika infection. At Vanderbilt University, Dr. James Crowe and his lab used Zika

virus sequence information that became available quickly to synthesize genes that encode the

viral protein to be used for antibody discovery.

 

     This is one example of how open data is benefiting research on Zika virus and its

associated diseases, leading public health officials to praise scientists for fulfilling their

“fundamental moral obligation” to collaborate. However, this movement has also been criticized;

authors of a Nature editorial warned that depositors of raw data will not receive adequate credit.

Undoubtedly, the lack of established norms for sharing and using unpublished data and the

departure from traditional peer review pose challenges to open data sharing. We asked Dr.

Crowe for his perspective on these obstacles and how to overcome them.

 

What are some challenges that have arisen or could potentially arise from open data?

Historically, publishing in high quality publications is the key to academic success and indirectly

to grant funding. Public release has typically killed the ability to publish high impact findings in

high visibility journals in the past because of press embargoes. The situation is evolving, but

promotion and tenure and grant review processes haven't changed all that much.

 

What advice do you have for scientists who might want to use data released prior to peer

review?

Peer review really does refine the interpretation of data. I'd be relatively cautious of data that

had never been reviewed.

 

What advice do you have for scientists who are considering sharing their data prior to peer

review?  

If the findings are potentially really important and one felt publication in a high visibility journal

was appropriate, I would interact with the journal staff or editorial board to understand how such

disclosure relates to that journal's policy on prior publication.

 

The physical sciences have been sharing data openly for many years.  Do you see a role for

open data sharing in the biomedical sciences beyond response to emerging crises?

I have never really understood how those fields handle academic credit for promotion and

tenure and for grant funding review. This might be appropriate, but the culture change needed in

the biological fields is enormous and I believe this would take years to accomplish.