*When open data is a Trojan Horse: The weaponization of transparency in science and governance* /Karen EC Levy, David Merritt Johns/ DOI: 10.1177/2053951715621568, Mar 2016 Abstract Openness and transparency are becoming hallmarks of responsible data practice in science and governance. Concerns about data falsification, erroneous analysis, and misleading presentation of research results have recently strengthened the call for new procedures that ensure public accountability for data-driven decisions. Though we generally count ourselves in favor of increased transparency in data practice, this Commentary highlights a caveat. We suggest that legislative efforts that invoke the language of data transparency can sometimes function as “Trojan Horses” through which other political goals are pursued. Framing these maneuvers in the language of transparency can be strategic, because approaches that emphasize open access to data carry tremendous appeal, particularly in current political and technological contexts. We illustrate our argument through two examples of pro-transparency policy efforts, one historical and one current: industry-backed “sound science” initiatives in the 1990s, and contemporary legislative efforts to open environmental data to public inspection. Rules that exist mainly to impede science-based policy processes weaponize the concept of data transparency. The discussion illustrates that, much as Big Data itself requires critical assessment, the processes and principles that attend it—like transparency—also carry political valence, and, as such, warrant careful analysis. Openness, transparency, and reproducibility have become the new watchwords of responsible data practice in science. A series of recent high-profile scandals has brought to light the problems of erroneous analysis, falsified data, problematic methodology, and cherry-picked presentation of research results (Carey and Belluck, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-5>; Coy, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-9>; Economist, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-10>; Kolata, 2011 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-22>). Some evidence suggests these problems, whether intentional or accidental, are more widespread than has been previously recognized, and that existing norms and processes of academic publishing and peer-review are poorly configured to detect or deter them (Gelman, 2015; Horton, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-15>). For instance, in one recent large-scale reanalysis of 100 published psychology studies, only about one-third of the results could be replicated (Open Science Collaboration, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-27>); in another recent analysis of 60 published economics papers, less than half of the main results could be replicated (Chang and Li, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-6>). In response, a number of standard-bearers in the scientific process have recently called for or instituted pro-transparency policies—from requiring researchers to make their data publicly available, to insisting that study results be independently replicated prior to publication (Ablin, 2014 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-1>; Alberts et al., 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-2>; Institute of Medicine, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-17>; Jacoby, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-18>). Similar pro-transparency principles have also gained traction in government. The ethos of open government, advocated in recent years by the Obama administration (Ellman and Suh, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-11>), posits that accessible datasets and transparent decision-making processes are necessary precursors to government accountability, responsible governance, public trust, and, ultimately, improved policy outcomes. Providing open access to information produced in federally funded research is said to be a core function of democracy, an effective means of accelerating job growth and innovation, and an essential strategy for promoting an engaged and informed public (Holdren, 2013 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-14>; Seife and Thacker, 2015 <http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568#ref-35>). As social scientists, we count ourselves in support of the (often overlapping) agendas of the open science and open governance movements. In numerous cases, accessibility and replication have strengthened the integrity of data-driven decisions and increase the accountability of decision-makers. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine many principled arguments /against/ transparency (except to the extent necessary to protect personal privacy or otherwise sensitive information)—especially when data are analyzed as part of public governance processes, or when public money has been used to produce them. However, in this Commentary, we highlight a critical challenge to the growing movement toward increased data transparency in science and public policy. We note that legislative efforts that invoke the language of data transparency can sometimes function as “Trojan Horses” designed to advance goals that have little to do with good science or good governance. Framing these maneuvers in the language of transparency can be politically strategic, because approaches that emphasize open access carry tremendous appeal, particularly in current political, technological, and institutional contexts. We illustrate our argument through two examples of pro-transparency policy efforts, one historical and one current: industry-backed “sound science” lobbying in the 1990s, and contemporary legislative efforts to open environmental data to public inspection. […] Continua qui: http://bds.sagepub.com/content/3/1/2053951715621568