Universities concerned by provision for early release of research data

With a few words carefully and quietly inserted by Congressman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) in the Fiscal Year 1999-00 Omnibus Appropriations Act in early November, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been directed to establish rules for the release of research data acquired under federal grants through procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

"There is considerable concern in the academic community over this new provision," said Henrik N. Dullea, Cornell vice president for university relations. "This issue will be a major subject of interest for our government affairs activities."

Government relations officials at research universities across the country, as well as higher education lobbying groups, are asking OMB to consider the potential damage that could be done to the research process if revisions to OMB rules are poorly thought-out; they argue that premature release of data would have harmful consequences.

Nils Hasselmo, president of the Association of American Universities (AAU), and Milton Goldberg, president of the Council on Government Relations (COGR), sent a letter Dec. 4 to OMB Director Jacob Lew pointing out the possible results of adopting FOIA procedures for research data.

"Premature release of research findings could be terribly misleading and create problems in many areas of public health and safety," they wrote. "Epidemiological researchers, who often publish series of articles concerning data collected over years, are concerned that compulsory premature disclosure of data could alter the behavior of study participants, thereby jeopardizing important research into questions that require longitudinal evidence-gathering to answer.... premature disclosure also jeopardizes the scientific process because many professional journals may be reluctant to publish articles that contain previously available and publicized data.... Premature release of research data could also pose problems relating to ownership of valuable intellectual property."

Hasselmo and Goldberg also point out that confidentiality of medical information could be compromised by release of certain data, and they note that there are also concerns about national security information and proprietary information.

They ask OMB to make revisions to ensure that FOIA requests will be entertained only after the publication of research results.

Also, they add, "Exemptions contained in FOIA and the protections they offer, therefore, must remain intact. These protections are critically important to academic researchers. It is important that any revision strongly reinforces and does not weaken the scope and legitimacy of the exemptions under FOIA, in order to avoid a multitude of process-oriented legal challenges. In the past, these exemptions have served well to balance the public's right to know with the protection of the public and national interest. In addition, the scope of the FOIA exemptions in the context of sponsored research must be understood in advance so that when researchers are recruiting study participants, they can in good faith disclose to them the types of information that will and will not be kept confidential."

"This is a very important issue to many faculty and to the integrity of research," said Jack Lowe, executive vice provost for research at Cornell. "I am happy that AAU and COGR have written such a strong letter of concern to the OMB director, and I hope that it gets the attention that it deserves."

Dullea added that, at Cornell's request, nine members of New York's congressional delegation have co-signed a letter urging OMB to make revisions only through the most careful, open and deliberative rule-making process. They include Reps. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-Utica), Maurice D. Hinchey (D-Ithaca), Nita Lowey (D-White Plains), Carolyn McCarthy (D-Nassau County), Major Owens (D-Brooklyn), Jose Serrano (D-So. Bronx), Louise Slaughter (D-Rochester), Edolphus Towns (D-Brooklyn) and James T. Walsh (R-Syracuse).