Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

This article seems really alarmist. It seems like the argument they are making is "raw data for some of the best science needs to be kept secret".

Considering one of the tenants of the scientific method is reproducibility, how can you reproduce something if the raw data is unavailable?

View on HN

It’s alarmist because people will die because of this rule.

If you get cancer because of a chemical spill do you want all of your personal information released to help prove that the chemicals spilled poisoned you? No. You want your personal data protected.

There is no requirement for personal data to be released. Plenty of environmental studies have been done with anonymized data.

Sounds like a red herring to me.

Your confidentiality agreement with a study can preclude them from even releasing the anonymized raw data, invaliding a study in the eyes of the EPA.

It also mandates reproducibility. It isn't exactly easy or even possible to reproduce a 70-year long study or a study of victims of a disaster which is the point of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The American Academy of Pediatrics.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-2...

Reproducibility in science means enough information is disclosed, such that the data can be reproduced. It does not mean it has to be repeated to be believed.

Reproducibility is a key part of the scientific method. I'm surprised people are so willing to toss it aside.

Reproducibility doesn't require the original data set to be present, only that the method of conducting that particular study reproducible. There are huge differences.

If you want to reproduce the analysis, you sure as heck do need original data.

I probably sound like a broken record, but this is standard across scientific disciplines. No raw data and people call bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com