New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Where Have All the Data Gone?

Twenty years after publication in 1991, 80 percent of the data behind scientific papers was no longer available. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Data are the lifeblood of science. But all those carefully recorded observations may be in danger. Because a new study shows that data from the recent past are being lost at an alarming rate. The journal Current Biology has the data to prove it. [Timothy H. Vines et al., The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age]

Scientific studies build on research that came before. And scientists turn to the facts and figures from previous work to aid in their own analyses or confirm that the earlier results still hold up. But how often can they access the older data they need?

To find out, researchers selected 500 studies published between 1991 and 2011. And they sent the authors a request for the studies’ raw data. Twenty years after publication, 80 percent of the data was unavailable.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In some cases, the authors couldn’t be reached. When they did respond, many reported that the data were simply not accessible, buried in an attic or saved on a now unreadable floppy disk.

This loss of information is an impediment to ongoing research and a waste of funding. Perhaps scientific data should be recognized as an endangered species, and efforts made to keep data around for future generations.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe