Advocacy Archive
Access to Research Data:
Good Regs, Bad Bill: APS Position on Revised Regulations to Allow FOIA Access to Research Data
A legislative legerdemain by a disgruntled U.S. Senator has created the real possibility that the public will have access to federally-funded research data. Following are APS's comments regarding the latest version of regulations that will allow access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The regulations that are being addressed in this letter are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2ndnotice-a110.cfm. For additional background on this issue, please see the April 1999 Observer article titled "Who Owns Your Research" available elsewhere on this Website.
American Psychological Society
1010 Vermont Avenue, NW - Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
September 9, 1999
Mr. F. James Charney
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building, Rm. 6025
Washington, DC 20503
Re: Request for Comments on Clarifying Changes to Proposed Revisions to OMB Circular A-110
Dear Mr. Charney:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the clarifying changes to the proposed revisions to OMB Circular A-110, dated August 11, 1999, concerning public access to research data. These comments are submitted on behalf of the 15,000 researchers and academicians who are members of the American Psychological Society.
First, we want to commend OMB for your responsiveness to our concerns and the concerns of the scientific community more generally regarding the impact of providing access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We recognize that OMB is compelled to implement the so-called "Shelby provision" in P.L. 105-277 and we believe that the revisions to Circular A-110 that you have proposed reflect the most practical and most reasonable approach, given the impractical, inappropriate and unreasonable nature of the underlying statute. We are strongly in favor of data sharing and dissemination of scientific information to the public, but the Shelby provision would not achieve either of those objectives. While we remain fundamentally opposed to the use of the FOIA as the mechanism for providing public access to data, we recognize the need to participate in the development of these regulations. Our responses to your specific requests for comments follow.
Definition of "research data" — APS does not object to the proposed definition of research data and the exclusions outlined in the August 11th notice. However, we believe that the term "files" should be replaced with the broader term "information" in order to cover data in all possible formats and thereby ensure the maximum protection of personal and proprietary information. Further, we are concerned about the inherent conflict that is created by the dual objectives of maintaining confidentiality and allowing access to data that are necessary to validate research results. Specifically, we are wondering what would happen when data is judged confidential by a researcher but at the same time could be central to the validation of research? We ask that you provide further clarification on this issue, and strongly urge you to ensure that confidentiality takes precedence over any other objective.
The definition of "published" — We have no objection to the proposed definition of "published" and we appreciate OMB's strong statement recognizing the need to prevent the premature release of research data.
Clarification of "used by the federal government in developing policy or rules" — We agree with changing "policy or rules" to "regulations" and agree that a broader proposal would be problematic both in practical terms and in terms of protecting confidentiality and the scientific process. However, we believe that OMB needs to address additional issues relating to the potential impact of this regulation. For example, if a federal agency cites a large volume of studies in developing a regulation, does that mean that data from any of the studies could be requested, regardless of whether that study was an integral part of the rulemaking process? We ask that this section be revised to apply only to studies that were critical in the development of a regulation.
Impact threshold — We agree with the establishment of an "impact threshold" as a way to ensure that requests for access to research data apply to regulations that have a significant public impact. However, we view the $100 million as a minimum, and would urge OMB to examine whether the threshold of $100 million is sufficient to achieve that objective. It is likely that in the context of the national economy, a higher threshold may be more appropriate.
Cost reimbursement — Allowing FOIA access to research data will impose a significant administrative and financial burden on federal granting agencies, universities, and individual researchers. APS believes that the OMB proposals in this area raise more questions than they answer, and we would strongly encourage you to examine the comments of the National Institutes of Health, the Association of American Universities, and the Association of American Medical Colleges regarding the need for additional clarification of issues associated with cost reimbursement.
We hope these comments are helpful in developing the mandated revisions to Circular A-110 and, again, we appreciate OMB's responsive and reasonable approach to this difficult set of issues. If further information is needed, please contact me at 202-783-2077, or akraut@psychologicalscience.org.
Sincerely,
Alan G. Kraut
Executive Director
American Psychological Society