3 ms·

For the government's information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint. Which this sure sounds like. ("Many researchers are ignoring a 2005

For the government's information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint. Which this sure sounds like. ("Many researchers are ignoring a 2005 requirement that they register proposed clinical trials in a government database as a condition for publishing their results in medical journals.")

three14 17y ago
From the linked article, it looks like the point is to prevent researchers from inventing a goal after the fact that's supported by the evidence they've collected. In other words, to make sure that the study is good science. So I don't think there should be prior restraint, but a good publication should reject the studies that aren't registered as bad science.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Yes, effort is to ensure that all relevant results on an issue are reported, rather than some results being buried in a file drawer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias so that later meta-analyses of published studies produce misleading aggregate results.
gojomo 17y ago
If you click through to the referenced study, it appears that even though the database is government-run, the 'requirement' comes from a body called the "International Committee of Medical Journal Editors". That is, it's not a legal restraint on publishing, but a standard established by a professional organization. It is unlikely "prior restraint" analysis applies.
tokenadult 17y ago
If the researchers accept government funds, they should accept government conditions on how they make results available to other researchers. Freedom of speech (the body of law connected to prior restraint) is freedom to do what you want with a printing press you own and pay for. If someone else owns and pays for the printing press, you honor the owner's freedom of speech by printing what the owner says, or you go buy your own printing press.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  Unfortunately, the Constitution says nothing about who owns and pays for the press.

three14 17y ago

From the linked article, it looks like the point is to prevent researchers from inventing a goal after the fact that's supported by the evidence they've collected. In other words, to make sure that the study is good science. So I don't think there should be prior restraint, but a good publication should reject the studies that aren't registered as bad science.

tokenadult 17y ago
Yes, effort is to ensure that all relevant results on an issue are reported, rather than some results being buried in a file drawer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias so that later meta-analyses of published studies produce misleading aggregate results.

gojomo 17y ago

If you click through to the referenced study, it appears that even though the database is government-run, the 'requirement' comes from a body called the "International Committee of Medical Journal Editors". That is, it's not a legal restraint on publishing, but a standard established by a professional organization. It is unlikely "prior restraint" analysis applies.

tokenadult 17y ago

If the researchers accept government funds, they should accept government conditions on how they make results available to other researchers. Freedom of speech (the body of law connected to prior restraint) is freedom to do what you want with a printing press you own and pay for. If someone else owns and pays for the printing press, you honor the owner's freedom of speech by printing what the owner says, or you go buy your own printing press.

CamperBob 17y ago
Unfortunately, the Constitution says nothing about who owns and pays for the press.