News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on California moves to silence Stanford researchers who got data to study education. Parent comment

Re:California moves to silence Stanford researchers who got ... by dragonwriter on Friday July 28, 2023 @12:15PM (#36909108)
> The issue here seems to be that the school system is saying that the researchers aren't allowed to be a witness in any lawsuit against the school system regardless of whether it has to do with the data that was shared with the researchers

I think the issue isn't being a witness in the general sense, but an expert witness which is either a paid gig or one which payment is waived because of other alignment of interests. Being an expert witness against someone you are in any kind of working relationship with is a clear and obvious conflict on interest.

> If the information can safely be shared with a particular researcher then it seems like there is minimal benefit to society in letting the school system pick and choose who gets access and who doesn't.

So HIPAA-protected data that meets the standards for research sharing should instead be made public? (And if you say, “well, its different, this is the government”—government holds lots of data protected by HIPAA.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California moves to silence Stanford researchers who got ... by lowbloodsugar on Friday July 28, 2023 @12:35PM (#36909464)
>expert witness against someone

The state is not a "someone". The state is in an extremely privileged position legally, and as such is bound by the First Amendment which you and I are not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California moves to silence Stanford researchers who got ... by dragonwriter on Friday July 28, 2023 @12:49PM (#36909669)
Sure, the State is bound by the First Amendment, and there is a fair debate as to whether the clear conflict of interest involved in being an expert witness against the state must be tolerated alongside research data sharing for that reason, either in general (unlikely, IMO) or at least in the specific case where there is no nexus with the shared data (more likely).

But it is a clear conflict of interest.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:California moves to silence Stanford researchers who got ... by lowbloodsugar on Friday July 28, 2023 @06:53PM (#36914467)
The problem is your claim of conflict. Measurement of the government by the people can never be considered a conflict. If the data shows that the government, the CDE, failed to improve outcomes, that is just data. It is the opposite of a conflict. The CDE is required to improve outcomes: suppressing information that it failed to do so is antithetical to that outcome. The CDE needs this information to do its job, regardless of claims by PHBs to the contrary.
[ Parent | on HN ]