A peer-to-peer database for brain imaging data
NemoImage
13, Number
6, 2001,
Part 2 of 2 Parts 1 D E al@
METHODS
- ANALYSIS
A Peer-to-Peerdatabasefor Brain Imaging Data
Benjamin Martin
Bly*t,
Donovan Rebbechi *, Giorgio GrassoS, Stephen J. Hanson*
*Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark
TDepartment of Radiology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
SDipartimento di Matematica e Informatica,
Universita di Catania
The Rutgers University
Mind/Brain
Analysis
(RUMBA)
project has created a brain-imaging
archive to foster collaboration
and
data-sharing
in a manner that leaves control of the distribution
of their data with researchers,
while allowing others to search for
it and easily access and use it with consent. The design of the archive promotes secure sharing of potentially
sensitive data both
before and after publication.
It can augment traditional
databases,
allowing
sharing of data when unlimited
dissemination
is
undesirable.
A recent controversy
over proposals to build a large-scale
brain-imaging
database for Cognitive
Neuroscience
(1, 2)
suggests that such a database may be a valuable addition to the toolkit of cognitive
neuroscience.
Our approach to sharing the results of brain-imaging
experiments
is to use the interconnectedness
the intemet affords to establish
protocols
for consensual
sharing of data, and a centralized
database to register the existence and particulars
of data one wishes to
publicize,
separate from the raw data, over which experimenters
will wish to maintain ultimate control. The use of a centralized
database to register
experimentally-acquired
data sets, along with software
allowing
searching
of the database and setting
researcher-specified
conditions
upon the sharing of data can mediate public-key
encrypted
peer-to-peer
exchange of data, tagged
to indicate source and recipient,
with both parties agreeing to conditions
for use and handling
(including
prohibitions
on
redistribution,
insistence on patient confidentiality,
terms for cooperative
publication,
etc.) We believe that this archive will enable
widespread
collaboration,
allowing
large numbers of researchers
with different
but compatible
or synergistic
goals to find each
other.
In spite of the reasonableness
of possessive feelings about brain-imaging
data, it is important to recognize
that proposals for a
shared database offer a tremendous
opportunity.
If we can find a way to promote sharing of data, it will undoubtedly
benefit the
field greatly. In fact, as the field is still searching for an adequate language to describe how the brain underlies cognitive processes,
the benefits of shared data may be even larger than in cases such as genome mapping or X-ray crystallography.
The challenge is
to find ways to encourage sharing of data that do not threaten the loss of control over original research. Fortunately,
the modem
infrastructure
supporting
scientific
research offers strategies for solving this problem.
References
[l]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Science 289, 1458 (2000).
Nature 406, 445 (2000).
Science 226, 994 (1994).
P. T. Fox, J. L. Lancaster,
in Positron Emission Tomography:
A critical assessment
Muller-Gartner,
Eds. (Kluwer
Academic
Publishers,
1998) part 5, section 26.
S82
of research
trends,
B. Gulyas,
and H. W.
13, Number
6, 2001,
Part 2 of 2 Parts 1 D E al@
METHODS
- ANALYSIS
A Peer-to-Peerdatabasefor Brain Imaging Data
Benjamin Martin
Bly*t,
Donovan Rebbechi *, Giorgio GrassoS, Stephen J. Hanson*
*Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Newark
TDepartment of Radiology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
SDipartimento di Matematica e Informatica,
Universita di Catania
The Rutgers University
Mind/Brain
Analysis
(RUMBA)
project has created a brain-imaging
archive to foster collaboration
and
data-sharing
in a manner that leaves control of the distribution
of their data with researchers,
while allowing others to search for
it and easily access and use it with consent. The design of the archive promotes secure sharing of potentially
sensitive data both
before and after publication.
It can augment traditional
databases,
allowing
sharing of data when unlimited
dissemination
is
undesirable.
A recent controversy
over proposals to build a large-scale
brain-imaging
database for Cognitive
Neuroscience
(1, 2)
suggests that such a database may be a valuable addition to the toolkit of cognitive
neuroscience.
Our approach to sharing the results of brain-imaging
experiments
is to use the interconnectedness
the intemet affords to establish
protocols
for consensual
sharing of data, and a centralized
database to register the existence and particulars
of data one wishes to
publicize,
separate from the raw data, over which experimenters
will wish to maintain ultimate control. The use of a centralized
database to register
experimentally-acquired
data sets, along with software
allowing
searching
of the database and setting
researcher-specified
conditions
upon the sharing of data can mediate public-key
encrypted
peer-to-peer
exchange of data, tagged
to indicate source and recipient,
with both parties agreeing to conditions
for use and handling
(including
prohibitions
on
redistribution,
insistence on patient confidentiality,
terms for cooperative
publication,
etc.) We believe that this archive will enable
widespread
collaboration,
allowing
large numbers of researchers
with different
but compatible
or synergistic
goals to find each
other.
In spite of the reasonableness
of possessive feelings about brain-imaging
data, it is important to recognize
that proposals for a
shared database offer a tremendous
opportunity.
If we can find a way to promote sharing of data, it will undoubtedly
benefit the
field greatly. In fact, as the field is still searching for an adequate language to describe how the brain underlies cognitive processes,
the benefits of shared data may be even larger than in cases such as genome mapping or X-ray crystallography.
The challenge is
to find ways to encourage sharing of data that do not threaten the loss of control over original research. Fortunately,
the modem
infrastructure
supporting
scientific
research offers strategies for solving this problem.
References
[l]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Science 289, 1458 (2000).
Nature 406, 445 (2000).
Science 226, 994 (1994).
P. T. Fox, J. L. Lancaster,
in Positron Emission Tomography:
A critical assessment
Muller-Gartner,
Eds. (Kluwer
Academic
Publishers,
1998) part 5, section 26.
S82
of research
trends,
B. Gulyas,
and H. W.