Rare Sharing of Data Led to Results on Alzheimer's

From the New York Times

The key to the Alzheimer's project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

More like this

Should any data, not just genomic data, be held hostage by the grant award process? Hunh? Let me back up... By way of ScienceBlogling Daniel MacArthur, I came across this excellent post by David Dooling about, among other things, how different genome centers, based on size, have different…
You may recall the case of Luk Van Parijs, the promising young associate professor of biology at MIT who was fired in October of 2005 for fabrication and falsification of data. (I wrote about the case here and here.) Making stuff up in one's communications with other scientists, whether in…
I buried this among a bunch of other cool links yesterday, but there was a study the other day, in the Journal of Cell Biology, that seriously calls in question the methodology used by Thompson Scientific to calculate the sacred Impact Factor, the magic number that makes and breaks lives and…
Cameron comes up with several persuasive reasons in Why good intentions are not enough to get negative results published: The idea is that there is a huge backlog of papers detailing negative results that people are gagging to get out if only there was somewhere to publish them. Unfortunately there…