|Articles|August 19, 2016

Tribunal Orders Release of Withheld Data from London Trial

Author(s)Philip Ward

The tribunal noted the "strong public interest in releasing the data given the continued academic interest" and "the seeming reluctance for Queen Mary University to engage with other academics they thought were seeking to challenge their findings."

A tribunal in the U.K. has ruled that data from a clinical trial into chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) must be released, according to an announcement by MEAction, an international patient network for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. The tribunal rejected an appeal from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL).


The trial, called PACE, was a £5 million, publicly funded clinical trial of exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy for CFS. QMUL spent over £200,000 on legal fees in this case to appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that they should release anonymized data, stated MEAction. To allow analysis of the data according to the study’s original published protocol, the request for data was made under the Freedom of Information Act.


QMUL claimed the data was personally identifiable information and was not sufficiently anonymized, but the tribunal rejected these arguments, noting that QMUL had already shared the data with a small selection of other scientists, the release continued. The tribunal was satisfied that the data “...has been anonymized to the extent that the risk of identification is remote.”


The tribunal also noted the "strong public interest in releasing the data given the continued academic interest" and "the seeming reluctance for Queen Mary University to engage with other academics they thought were seeking to challenge their findings," MEAction added.


In its submissions, QMUL made a number of accusations of harassment from patients, while QMUL’s expert witness characterized PACE trial critics as "young men, borderline sociopathic or psychopathic", but the Information Commissioner dismissed these remarks as "wild speculations", according to the statement.


Related to this article

© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.