NEWSWEEK Cover Story, May 24, 2010 – How the road from promising scientific breakthrough to real-world remedy has become all but a dead end. Private foundations have veered away from the NIH model, requiring scientists to share data and do the nonsexy development work required after a discovery is made.

Development of high-throughput genomic and postgenomic technologies has caused a change in approaches to data handling and processing (1). One biological sample might be used to generate many kinds of “big” data in parallel, such as genome sequence (genomics), patterns of gene and protein expression.

Despite existing guidelines on access to data and bioresources, good practice is not widespread. A meeting of mouse researchers in Rome proposes ways to promote a culture of sharing.

Rapid release of pre-publication data has served the field of genomics well. Attendees at a workshop in Toronto recommend extending the practice to other biological data sets.

Most researchers agree that open access to data is the scientific ideal, so what is stopping it happening? Bryn Nelson investigates why many researchers choose not to share.

Research cannot flourish if data are not preserved and made accessible. All concerned must act accordingly. More and more often these days, a research project’s success is measured not just by the publications it produces, but also by the data it makes available to the wider community.