- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Pruitt Unveils Controversial Limits to Scientific Research
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:21 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:21 am to ShortyRob
quote:
There's nothing to be conflicted about. Science absolutely requires replication studies which obviously can't be done if you keep how you did your study Secret
I'd need to look into it more but on the surface I tend to agree with you
The scientific method isn't "proprietary" IMO
0
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:22 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Of course, take the names off. Done.
Names aren't the only protected PHI per HIPAA. It's sometimes impossible to create a truly de-identified or partially de-identified dataset, given the characteristics of a community and specifics around how widespread a disease/condition may be.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:22 am to BamaAtl
quote:
He isn't differentiating - he's saying ALL data, even raw data, must be made public.
Wrong
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:25 am to starsandstripes
I guess I need to look into what specifically they want to make more public. The articles I read weren't specific. What exactly is protected by HIPPA?
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:28 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Names aren't the only protected PHI per HIPAA. It's sometimes impossible to create a truly de-identified or partially de-identified dataset, given the characteristics of a community and specifics around how widespread a disease/condition may be.
There's only one question. Is any evidence that the EPA will require identifying information in violation of hipaa to comply with this policy?
My guess is there isn't and this is your typical histrionics
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:29 am to starsandstripes
quote:
starsandstripes
LINK
quote:
Under the proposed policy, the agency would no longer consider scientific research unless the underlying raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry groups to examine
As usual, reality conflicts with your bias.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:30 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
There's only one question. Is any evidence that the EPA will require identifying information in violation of hipaa to comply with this policy?
Yes - the underlying policy requires the release of raw data.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:30 am to BamaAtl
wait "raw data" includes subject identifications, too?
link me please
link me please
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:32 am to BamaAtl
If you are against something it is an excellent barometer to know that the policy is probably great and an absolute necessity.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:34 am to BamaAtl
quote:
es - the underlying policy requires the release of raw data.
So no
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
link me please
Hahaha
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:36 am to wutangfinancial
If it really is that simple, then I’m okay with it
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If academics were to turn over the raw data to be made available for public review, the agency would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a federal estimate, to redact private information.
Even the NYT article doesn’t jive with her argument here.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wait "raw data" includes subject identifications, too?
It's not always possible to fully de-identify (or even partially de-identify) a dataset in such a way that study participants could not be identified. Think small affected populations, or studies where specific geographic locations are important for analysis.
So, again, yes.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:38 am to wutangfinancial
Pruitt has an agenda, though, and it’s not to protect the environment, although that’s pretty much his job description.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:39 am to BamaAtl
quote:
It's sometimes impossible to create a truly de-identified or partially de-identified dataset, given the characteristics of a community and specifics around how widespread a disease/condition may be.
False. Even in N=1 studies you can achieve this. You are simply lying because you're a liberal shill and you don't like Pruitt.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:40 am to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
There is a lot of research that goes on using proprietary data.
Privately funded research and data should remain private.
Publicly funded resrarch and data should not.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:42 am to BamaAtl
quote:
As usual, reality conflicts with your bias.
"The proposed new policy — the details of which are still being worked out "
So once again you have no clue what you're talking about. You are making claims without any basis. Shocker.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:43 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Yes - the underlying policy requires the release of raw data.
Another lie.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 9:46 am to starsandstripes
quote:
Even in N=1 studies you can achieve this.
Not and fulfill the requirements that the data be preserved in such a way as to allow for replication - as the order directs re: accepting studies as 'valid'.
That's why we have IRB boards and data use agreements and so many other things to safeguard subjects' data.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News