Survey examines extent of
secrecy in academic life science research

BOSTON — April 15, 1997 — Academic researchers in the life sciences who are involved with commercialization of their research or who participate in academic-industry research relationships are more likely to withhold the results of their research from the overall scientific community, according to a report in the April 16 Journal of the American Medical Association. In the first large-scale, quantitative study to look at factors associated with research secrecy in the life sciences, the investigators from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the University of Minnesota also found that scientists involved in genetics and those that publish many research articles are more likely to withhold information.

Although the overall numbers of scientists who admitted behaviors associated with research secrecy was relatively low, the researchers note that such behavior is contrary to the ideals of science, which encourage free exchange of information, and the policies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and most research universities. "We know that some scientists do not share data freely and do not follow the policies that universities expect," says David Blumenthal, MD, MPP, chief of the MGH Health Policy Research and Development Unit and study leader. "We need to know what this means for the future of science, and universities and policymakers need to be vigilant and committed to openness."

The researchers surveyed a random sample of 3,400 life science faculty members at medical and graduate schools across the country. More than 2,000 responded to the survey, which asked whether respondents had ever delayed publishing research results for 6 months or longer (the NIH guidelines allow a 60-day delay for patent application) and whether they had refused to share research results or materials requested by other scientists. The survey also asked why information or materials had been withheld and analyzed the impact of such factors as participation in academic-industry research relationships, partici-pation in commercialization of research (patents, products or companies resulting from scientific work) and participation in genetics research.

Almost 20 percent of those responding reported delaying publication of research for more than six months at least once. The most frequently cited reasons among these scientists were the need for time to prepare a patent application, protection of the proprietary value of research and protection of their scientific lead over competing researchers. In terms of whether they had ever refused to share research results or materials with other scientists, 9 percent admitted such behavior, citing protection of a scientific lead, the limited supply or costs of requested material or informal agreements with companies as primary reasons for their refusals.

The researchers found that those scientists who were involved in academic-industry research relationships were more likely to engage in both types of data withholding: 27 percent reported delaying publication, compared to 17 percent of those without such relationships; and 11 percent admitted refusing requests for data or materials, compared to 8 percent of those with no industry involvement. However, the study also showed that researchers receiving a larger proportion of their total research budgets from industry were actually less likely to refuse sharing information than those with small levels of industry support.

In addition, those faculty members engaged in commercialization of research were more likely to report delays in publication (31 percent versus 11 percent) and denial of requests from other researchers (13 percent versus 5 percent) than those not involved in commercialization. Researchers in the field of genetics were more likely to delay publication (22 percent versus 19 percent) and significantly more likely to refuse sharing results and materials (14 percent versus 6 percent) than those conducting research in other fields. Finally, those scientists who reported either delaying publication or refusing to share tended to publish a greater number of scientific papers than those who did not report withholding behaviors.

"One of the things that was most surprising to us was the association of withholding with high levels of publication," says Blumenthal. "But it could be because only those who have information to publish are faced with deciding whether to delay publication and because those who are most visible and productive in their fields probably receive more requests to share information and materials.

"The fact that we can document this kind of behavior — and we believe the rates seen in this survey probably reflect minimum levels — is a cause for concern and further investigation," he says. "It’s clearly more common in highly competitive fields like genetics, although some of that may reflect a greater number of requests for information and materials. National policymakers like the NIH and the National Center for Human Genome Research need to be even more active in encouraging free exchange of information and assuring that established guidelines are followed."

Along with Blumenthal, the paper’s co-authors are Eric Campbell, PhD, and Nancyanne Causino, EdD, of the MGH Health Policy Research and Development Unit, and Melissa Anderson, PhD, and Karen Seashore Louis, PhD, of the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.

The Massachusetts General Hospital, established in 1811, is the oldest and largest teaching hospital of the Harvard Medical School and conducts the largest hospital-based research program in the United States. The MGH has major research centers in transplantation biology, the neurosciences, cardiovascular research, cancer, cutaneous biology and photomedicine. Along with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the MGH is a founding member of Partners HealthCare System, Inc.

Contact Sue McGreevey in the MGH Public Affairs Office.

Recent News | News Archives | Hotline | Massachusetts General Hospital