Data Economics

In their recent seminal work, Longo and Drazo (2016) sketched out what might be called the trickle-down theory of data economics.  But, to really get off the ground, this fledging field needs some alternative theories.  Towards that end, a brief snapshot of the original theory and two alternatives are presented forthwith.

Haves vs Have-Nots

The Longo and Drazo theory posits that data is fundamentally the property of “front-line researchers” who created the data, and therefore, are the rightful owners of the data.   On the other hand, you have a new lower class of researchers that make no data whatsoever.  Many of these computer-toting “research parasites” probably never got a research grant in their life, never did an experiment, yet they somehow think they are entitled to data just because they don’t have any.  Slackers.

But, the data hosts can be magnanimous on occasion.  If it suits their interests, they may be willing to let the research parasites feed at their data trough by working “symbiotically”.  However, if the parasites are pushing a theory that doesn’t interest them, or even worse, runs counter to their own interpretation, forget about it.  And if the hosts are dead, well, the parasites are just going to have to go hungry.

Farmers vs Hunter-Gatherers

In this theory, the data makers are akin to farmers.  They toil in the fields near the Ivory Tower in which they live.   These farmers depend on the data they grow for sustenance.  But they often don’t consume the whole crop, and often leave much of it out in the field to rot. Out beyond the fields, there are a roaming class of hunter-gatherers.  These researchers are often living hand-to-mouth, just trying to get whatever data they can find that will help them solve the problem they happen to be working on that day.  Even though they do have their own data that they have gleaned from personal experience, as you may imagine, they often want to take it from the data farmers.  Scavengers from neighboring fiefdoms may also wander over to snatch data from the farmers too.

If the farmers really need the data for themselves, then of course they will object to having the data they created snatched from them.  On the other hand, if they have already gotten what they need, why not just let the gatherers have it?

Polluters vs Regulators

Industrialized countries are churning out data and releasing it into the intellectual environment at an ever increasing rate.  Unfortunately, instead of being released in pure form, the data are often contaminated with byproducts known as theories.  While these theories are often innocuous or even beneficial, many theories are deleterious to the mental health of anyone exposed to them.  The use of the log(dose) transform, for instance.

 

So, there obviously needs to be a public mechanism for mitigating the release of noxious theories into the environment.  The government could perhaps establish an academy to sort through epistemological disputes.  Oh wait, that already happened.  But, what if the academy itself is contaminated with bad theories?  Maybe there needs to be an open process for evaluating whether not the data really justify the theories they are issued with.  Hard to see how that can happen without making the data available unsullied.

Reference

Longo DL and Drazen JM (2016).  Data Sharing.  N Engl J Med 374:276-277