Professor James Coyne’s request for the dataset used for a paper about the PACE trial in the journal PLOS ONE was rejected on Friday as “vexatious”. King’s College London (KCL), acting for the PACE authors, wrote to Professor Coyne that they considered that there was “a lack of value or serious purpose to [his] request”, “improper motive” and a “polemical” purpose. They also wrote that “the request “has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff” and that an “active campaign to discredit the project has caused distress to the university’s researchers who hold legitimate concerns that they will be subject to public criticism and reputational damage.”
Professor Coyne made the request on 13 November, citing PLOS ONE’s data-sharing policy to which all authors agree when submitting papers to the journal. KCL instead responded by treating his request under the Freedom of Information Act and promised a response within twenty days.
The denial was sent on the evening of the twentieth business day. It comes despite Professor Coyne’s earlier online publication of a letter to PLOS ONE saying that if the PACE authors denied him the data “they will be testing the commitment of PLOS to its policies and the scientific community will be watching… In the eventuality that I do not receive their data, I believe appropriate sanctions should be available for immediate application.”
Response from the academic community has been swift and condemnatory and is growing. Prominent bloggers Retraction Watch wrote, “King’s College London doesn’t want to release data to James Coyne from a study of chronic fatigue syndrome. See if the absurd reasons make your blood boil as much as ours”. Research biologist Klaas van Dijk wrote to PLOS ONE requesting that they “immediately issue an Expression of Concern attached to the paper” and that “the paper be retracted if Professor Coyne has not received full access to all raw research data… within one month.”
Academics who appear unfamiliar with the PACE controversy but who have an interest in scientific standards are using Twitter to express their disapproval of KCL’s action. They include neuroscientist Professor Chris Chambers of Cardiff University, who tweeted, “If @KingsCollegeLon is seeking to do itself ‘reputational damage’, hiding trial data shd do the job”, and leading University of Virginia research psychologist Brian Nosek, who tweeted, “King’s College data sharing refusal and rationale are antithetical to science”. Dr Nosek is the Executive Director of the Center for Open Science.
It is possible to leave comments on the PLOS ONE site in relation to the PACE paper. Professor Coyne has posted a comment about the study authors’ refusal to share their data and in response, one patient wrote, “Patients are relying on PLOS One to be the first scientific institution to stand up for good scientific practice in the context of the PACE trial… Patients don’t risk their health in clinical trials so that study authors can misrepresent the results and prevent independent researchers from investigating them.”
The PACE trial was a £5 million, publicly funded UK study whose authors claim that graded exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy showed benefits for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. It has been dogged with controversy since its inception and its authors have repeatedly refused to supply raw data from the study that would allow independent investigation of its findings. An 11,000-strong petition calls for misleading claims made by the PACE authors to be retracted.
NIH Must Not Overlook Evidence of Exercise Harm
Long COVID Exercise study must address safety, efficacy concerns.
8 thoughts on ““Vexatious”: King’s College London dismisses James Coyne’s request for PLOS One PACE data”
I love these summaries you’re putting out on actions and research. A small correction here. In the initial reply from KCL, they said that while the request for data release had come under the PLOS One publishing agreement, they were choosing to treat it as an FOIA. And that they would reply in 20 days. When 20 days were up and they hadn’t responded, they sent a missive saying that they meant 20 business days.
Prof Coyne was given 60 days to respond to their treating the PLOS agreement data request as an FOIA and to their refusal to release the data. I would presume this is also 60 business days though imagine Prof Coyne won’t string it out until the afternoon of the last day.
Coyne has indicated that he does not intend to respond to their refusal under FOIA procedures. I agree this would be a waste of time given the way that past requests have been handled. He appears to be leaving this in PLOS’s hands and hopes that they will do the right thing. I share this same hope.
It seems the authors of this questionable study are employing the old maxim, “Its better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid then open it and remove all doubt.”
Nothing is said about the harassment of PWME. It’s important for researchers and Institutions of education be aware that the primary stakeholder is the ME Community. To use the excuse of “vexatious” manner or the harassment of the staff is downright ridiculous. An ME patient lying in bed surrounded by solitude for over 40 yrs has a desperate need for better science and more importantly more compassion. The staff could not be experiencing this level of abuse and your use of both “vexatious or harassment” is far below any level of education. You should be shamed.
Hi Wendy- Thank you for your comment. I wanted to make sure that you knew that we are reporting about what KCL/the PACE team said in their response, and don’t agree with their message in any way. Would you like contact information for the KCL Information Management and Compliance office?
Prof Weasely remains unrepentant http://www.nationalelfservice.net/other-health-conditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/the-pace-trial-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-choppy-seas-but-a-prosperous-voyage/#comment-992845
I am a medical researcher at KCL. I have always supported full data sharing, and have done a bit of it myself. This is a normal and increasingly common part of research.
PACE has two particular problems: a controversial decision to change the primary endpoint, replacing a minor, but useful improvement in symptoms with something even less impressive, and an editorial that talked about “cure”, even though the word appeared nowhere in the article.
The initial decision not to share the data would have been taken by the trial’s Chief Investigator, usually the first author on the main paper; probably supported by the chair of the Steering Committee. They will be specialists in CFS and CBT. But the trial is guaranteed by KCL, whose brief is much wider, and with a considerable reputation for excellent research to protect. They will want PLOS Medicine to think well of them.
Comments are closed.