Photo Credit – CDC
# 7210
There is an old adage of uncertain parentage – but most often attributed to political scientist Wallace Sayre – that (paraphrased) states, `Academic infighting is so bitter, because the stakes are so small’.
Of course, that isn’t nearly as true as it once was.
The stakes in academia now extend far beyond the publish or perish incentive in order to achieve tenure. In addition to prestige, the fruits of research today can be worth millions in terms of government and private grants, patents, or licensing agreements to individuals, universities, organizations, and even governments.
These incentives have often led to research being closely held until papers can be published and proper credit bestowed to the originators.
In the fast moving world of virology, where – as we’ve recently witnessed – new, and potentially dangerous viruses can pop up and begin to spread quickly, delays in releasing data can have serious consequences for public health.
To overcome this hoarding of data - which can impede other researcher's progress for months or even years - GISAID was set up in 2008 to allow researchers to deposit, and get credit for, genetic sequences they have worked out.
But as the following Nature article from Declan Butler & David Cyranoski explains, once sequences are deposited, the process gets complicated and things don’t always go as well as planned.
Follow the link to read:
Nature | News
Flu papers spark row over credit for data
Rush to publish on H7N9 avian flu upsets Chinese scientists.
01 May 2013
On 31 March, China reported the first human cases of infection with a new H7N9 avian flu virus. The same day, a team at the Chinese National Influenza Center (CNIC) in Beijing uploaded to a research database the genetic sequences of viruses isolated from the first three human cases. But Nature has learned that in the days that followed, Chinese scientists and officials grew increasingly concerned that China might lose credit for its work in isolating and sequencing the virus.
