Trial By Error: QMUL and FOI; Nature and Cochrane; the Pineapple Fund

dave30th said:
And while it is acknowledged that QMUL would likely have other stats people who could figure it out
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the stats people are in the loop here at all. We want the data, not their (yet again!) half-baked analysis of it! The level of expertise needed to identify the relevant raw original-source data (not intermediate part-analysed data), is nothing like what is needed to analyse that data. And if the participant-identifying data was supposed to be confined to a separate database on a separate site (I'm sure I read that for PACE), why can we not just ask for all the anonymized data anyway, and leave it to us to take it from there?
 
Last edited:
Barry said:
I don't understand why the stats people are in the loop here at all. We want the data, not their (yet again!) half-baked analysis of it! The level of expertise needed to identify the relevant raw original-source data (not intermediate part-analysed data), is nothing like what is needed to analyse that data. And if the participant-identifying data was supposed to be confined to a separate database on a separate site (I'm sure I read that for PACE), why can we not just as for all the anonymized data anyway, and leave it to us take it from there?
Click to expand...
THIS
 
it's great to get a report on both pine, to whom i am grateful, and the omf.

as for qmul, there are quite a lot of observers of academia and government. why is not an enormous chorus saying qmul is [1] performing morally wrong actions and [2] violating its obligation as a university?

even the chronology of "my dog ate my homework" gets no press! that's !@#$ click bait!

as an aside, where is the retraction watch blog? we get little sentences every once in a while. when will they put the story in context and hammer at it like david does?

it seems now forgotten, but universities exist to protect enlightenment values of truth and transparency. i do not believe that /veritas/ was always posturing -- correct me if needed. qmul is /incontrovertibly/ destroying those values. do academia [and the world] truly not care?

when precisely were the lights turned off?

or, are we not loud enough?
 
Would an open letter to recent funders or likely future funders of research happening at QMUL possibly be of use? Basically warning them of the issues at the university which are documented in the FOIA response, and pointing them to the coverage from David Tuller or any experts in the realm of data storage practices?

CCed to QMUL of course :)
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
My recent conversation with a colleague at QMUL would suggest that other academics are pretty embarrassed by the whole goings on. I think the pressure should be maintained full throttle. The whole thing is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
I wonder: would any of your QMUL 'embarrassed' colleagues being willing to speak to Carol Monaghan? I imagine such overtures would be hard to ignore...
 
Barry said:
I don't understand why the stats people are in the loop here at all. We want the data, not their (yet again!) half-baked analysis of it! The level of expertise needed to identify the relevant raw original-source data (not intermediate part-analysed data), is nothing like what is needed to analyse that data.
Click to expand...
The stats people were brought in by QMUL as part of their argument to the Information Tribunal in 2015. QMUL argued that the PACE data requested on that (separate) occasion would be too expensive to produce,
12. QMUL explained to the Commissioner that the relevant raw data is held in a very large database of 3000 variables with 640 rows. It went on to explain the steps required in order to provide the information to the complainant.
Click to expand...
(See the decision for some of the specifics on the database, statistical work required etc).

Based on what QMUL submitted about the work involved, and level of expertise required, the IC decided that QMUL could not be said to hold the data, rather they would have to create it,
The Commissioner considered the explanation of the steps required to locate, retrieve and extract the information. He determined that the application of section 12 was not appropriate in the circumstances of the case. QMUL was, in fact, stating that it would be ‘creating’ the information and the information was therefore ‘not held’.
Click to expand...
23. As the complainant [in this case] correctly noted, the use of existing query tools to provide information is not considered to be creating new information. However, this refers to the use of existing query tools not the creation or determination of the query tools themselves. QMUL is clear that it would be required to create information in order to respond to the complainant’s request.

24. The complainant has demonstrated her experience and knowledge in matters pertinent to her request. As referenced in paragraph 17, she is of the opinion that her request comprises data retrieval not statistical manipulation. QMUL has confirmed that this is not the case.

25. The Commissioner considers that QMUL holds the ‘building blocks’ to generate the requested information but the action required to produce that information would equate to creating new information in order to respond to the request. The Commissioner notes that public authorities are not required by the FOIA to create information.
Click to expand...

It's this point that @JohnTheJack is appealing, if I've understood correctly. In his thread on the current decision John said,
JohntheJack said:
I am in effect not appealing this decision but the other one ... which was relied on in this instance. Since that decision did not go to the IT, then I think it's worth a shot.

Essentially I'll be arguing (abbreviated version):
1. Providing the anonymized data from the raw data is not 'creating'.
2. Because QMUL, as a university, has always been able to provide this data, then it has in the terms of the decision always held and continues to hold it, and should provide it.
3. It is part of the function of a university to store data and so it is reasonable for the ICO to insist it provide the information requested.
Click to expand...
(my bold)

His first point of appeal is essentially what you're saying, @Barry.
 
Am I right in thinking the problem here is that the data is held on something like SQL Server or maybe an Access db, which requires a reporting system eg either SQL reporting or Crystal Reports or similar to actually get the data into a report format. (This makes more sense to me as that is one of the things I used to do).
If this is the case then there must be existing programs to generate the relative reports; maybe thats what PW knows where to find them/which ones they are?

eta: this is information that could be written in an email for an ordinary computer literate person to do. There must be some documentation on it somewhere unless PW took it with him.
 
Last edited:
Indigophoton said:
The stats people were brought in by QMUL as part of their argument to the Information Tribunal in 2015. QMUL argued that the PACE data requested on that (separate) occasion would be too expensive to produce,

(See the decision for some of the specifics on the database, statistical work required etc).

Based on what QMUL submitted about the work involved, and level of expertise required, the IC decided that QMUL could not be said to hold the data, rather they would have to create it,



It's this point that @JohnTheJack is appealing, if I've understood correctly. In his thread on the current decision John said,
(my bold)

His first point of appeal is essentially what you're saying, @Barry.
Click to expand...
I also wonder if consideration needs to be given, when making FOI requests of trial data, to avoid asking for data that needs much unravelling from amongs other data. Taking an extreme case by way of illustration, if you asked for everything, there would be no unravelling needed by the data holders. In our efforts to minimise what data is asked for in an attempt to improve the chances of not being rejected, do we inadvertently make it easier for them to claim it is too hard to unravel from the data set?
 
Has QMUL stated publicly whether they have contacted Peter White asking him to obtain the data, retired or not? If they have has he refused to do so and what grounds has he given for refusing. Surely they would have to have contacted him to ask at least whether he would come in and help to provide the data, how many hours it would take etc and if he would do it on a contracted basis or free of charge as he is the PI and its claimed they will still be using the publicly paid for data to provide follow up studies.

If this has not been done then surely QMUL are in breach of their contractual obligations in some way.

It would be just like me claiming I am the rightful owner of a piece of property but when asked for the appropriate paperwork I just say, "Ah well, sorry my solicitor has retired".

Try that one with the cops if they stop you and ask for ownership proof of your car.

I really think we should get the MP Carol Monaghan to request this or future data, that would be really interesting.
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
If this is the case then there must be existing programs to generate the relative reports
Click to expand...
Yes, according to the info provided by QMUL in the 2015 decision, there is suitable software,
QMUL went on to explain that there is no software specifically designed to complete the required analysis. Generic statistical software packages, for example Statistical Package for Social Sciences, have been used for some of QMUL’s previous analyses of data from the PACE trial and would be suitable in this case. The requisite statistician would need to understand both the PACE trial dataset and the required analysis. The statistician would be required to carry out “a multi-level analysis of all the domains that make up ‘recovery’”. QMUL went on to state that there are no statisticians currently employed to undertake PACE work.

22. The Commissioner considers that all public authorities must be treated fairly. His expectations in terms of their responses to requests for information must be equal. In this case it could be assumed that a statistician capable of analysing the dataset could be found within QMUL. However, this assumption could not equally be applied to other public authorities and is therefore not appropriate. Similarly no public authority could be expected to recruit staff to provide a response to an FOIA request.
Click to expand...
The problem is not the software, but that the FOI rules involve a high degree of what might be called reasonableness: it's not considered reasonable to ask QMUL to hire staff to create FOI data, nor for them to use in-house staff from elsewhere within the University, ie, their own statisticians/maths dept/etc given that not all public organizations would have those staff in-house (ie, the demands placed on organisations have to be fair and consistent under FOI rules).

Barry said:
I also wonder if consideration needs to be given, when making FOI requests of trial data, to avoid asking for data that needs much unravelling from amongs other data.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think this is where the 2015 request perhaps fell down - the person who put the request in asked specifically for recovery data, which probably needed calculating rather than merely extracting.
 
Sasha said:
My recent conversation with a colleague at QMUL would suggest that other academics are pretty embarrassed by the whole goings on. I think the pressure should be maintained full throttle. The whole thing is a disgrace.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that academics within QMUL can hear us, within their ivory tower (well, breeze-block tower). Are they aware, then? We've done a ton of shouting but it's hard to tell whether anyone is listening. If they are, they could be a big help by speaking up.

Yes, this whole thing is a disgrace, and as a patient whose health is affected by this shit, I want people going to jail if they're breaking the law in relation to it.
Click to expand...
There is this guy who made this statement in 2016:

DK7z2_wXUAAk1uQ.jpg

He co-signed this letter:
http://www.virology.ws/2017/03/23/an-open-letter-to-psychological-medicine-again/
 
Indigophoton said:
Yes, according to the info provided by QMUL in the 2015 decision . . .

22. The Commissioner considers that all public authorities must be treated fairly. His expectations in terms of their responses to requests for information must be equal. In this case it could be assumed that a statistician capable of analysing the dataset could be found within QMUL. However, this assumption could not equally be applied to other public authorities and is therefore not appropriate. Similarly no public authority could be expected to recruit staff to provide a response to an FOIA request.
Click to expand...
The problem is not the software, but that the FOI rules involve a high degree of what might be called reasonableness: it's not considered reasonable to ask QMUL to hire staff to create FOI data, nor for them to use in-house staff from elsewhere within the University, ie, their own statisticians/maths dept/etc given that not all public organizations would have those staff in-house (ie, the demands placed on organisations have to be fair and consistent under FOI rules).
Click to expand...

So from this quote it would seem that a "lowest common denominator" effect has to be taken regarding the capability of staff. Surely, "if you have the staff capable of doing the task, use them", would be a much less convoluted means of achieving fairness.

Why does - what all public organisations can do - have any relevance at all?

Does this ruling now mean then that ALL public bodies would need to have in-house staff capable of doing X task, before an FOI asking for X could reasonably request X from one body???

Seems a big loop-hole for organisations to wiggle out of their FOI responsibilities. All they need to do now is find one single public body that wouldn't have the staff to do X and claim unfair treatment!!!

This is worrying.

Some edits to get quotes in order... :p
 
Last edited:
Keela Too said:
Seems a big loop-hole for organisations to wiggle out of their FOI responsibilities. All they need to do now is find one single public body that wouldn't have the staff to do X and claim unfair treatment!!!

This is worrying.
Click to expand...

It is also unreasonable I think.

It creates a huge amount of work for those looking at FOI requests - ie assessing multiple organisations for their capabilities, instead of just looking at the organisation to which the FOI applies.

Could this be challenged on principle??
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Being embarrassed may not be quite the same as writing your own contract termination letter.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Which is a shame. I would have hoped self preservation might encourage some to 'whistle-blow' in as much as their own work could be sullied by association. And in any event:

“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
 
Lilpink said:
Actually couldn't they just mail Carol Monaghan and ask to remain anon as others have done in similar circumstances? Thus she can use the body of their message without naming any of them? Poor show if they don't have the cahoonas for that.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Many people at QMUL must know of this problem similarly at the MRC and NONE of them seem to give a toss about the safety and care of patients.

Do GMC good practice rules not expect doctors to speak out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom