Many people (myself included) have been critiquing an editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine that came out last week. The article included the term "Research Parasites" to describe people using other people's published data. This and other parts of the editorial led to a massive online backlash including the creation and use of various hashtags where people would describe, usually proudly how they were a "Research Parasite". Some of the responses are below. Just a few. There were 1000s and 1000s.
And here are some of the hashtags
And everything seemed so simple to me - an antiscience editorial and a Twitter festival of responses that led to something uplifting and with unicorns and such (ok, maybe not the uplifting and unicorns, but it seems so clear to me). Except then, for me at least, I saw the Tweets from which made me question some of my assumptions here about exactly what was the right thing to do. So I asked her if she would be OK with me making a Storify out of them and she said yes.
So here are some of her Tweets and some responses and discussion on the topic. As many know, I favor openscience as a default option and believe it is very important. But ... well ... openness has some risks and in a biased system those risks and disadvantages affect some people more than others. And that is just not a good thing. I don't know what the solution is here - but without a doubt the conversation here featuring is worth reading and thinking about deeply.