Cameron - thanks for taking the time to write about this.

One of the things I noticed is that after reading that article I don't have a good sense of what really happened here. There are references to closed investigations and interview statements but we still can't see the original lab notebooks to judge for ourselves. I don't think the reporter had a choice in the matter but wouldn't it be better all around if those documents were available?

It is easy to focus on the scandalous aspects and I am sure many reports will focus on that. But you are right the more important story is the role of openness in the current scientific process.

And it is certainly more fair to start research knowing that your lab notebook is going to be public rather than having to disclose it at a later date.

I don't know if you are completely on the same page with me about this but I think any efforts to force people to do Open Notebook Science will result in behaviors to circumvent the process - for example "double notekeeping". Researchers have to do it because they buy into the idea that they will benefit from doing it. And this is a good example of where it would have benefited.