I.3.4 Academic and Research Institutions
I.3.4.a Duke University
Duke University's policy addresses the entitlement of extramural research sponsors, but not that of the research community generally, to access to underlying data: "Extramural sponsors providing support for research at Duke University may also have the right to review the data and records resulting from that extramural project." Duke University, Academic Council, Policy on Data Retention and Access (May 5, 1994).
It is noteworthy that, to the extent that the federal government is an extramural sponsor, the federal government would have access under this policy. Moreover, other provisions of federal law, such as OMB's proposed amendment to Circular A-110 could in turn provide third-party researchers with an opportunity to review the data.
I.3.4.b Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT")
MIT's Committee on Academic Responsibility has taken the position that "[r]esearch data, including primary experimental results, should be retained for a sufficient period to allow examination and further analysis by others. After publication, the primary research data generally should be made available promptly and completely to other responsible scientists who seek further information." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fostering Academic Integrity: Report of the Committee on Academic Responsibility Appointed by the President and Provost of MIT § 5.A.2 (Apr. 15, 1992).
I.3.4.c Mount Sinai School of Medicine ("MSSM")
"In keeping with the traditions of academic science and its basic objectives, it is the policy of MSSM that results of scientific research are to be promptly and openly made available to others. Since the traditional modes of dissemination through scholarly exchange and publication are not fully effective for most TRP [tangible research property], it is MSSM policy that those research results which have tangible form should also be promptly and openly made available to other scientists for their scientific research, unless such distribution is inappropriate due to factors such as safety, the need to more fully characterize or develop the TRP prior to distribution, or unless such distribution is incompatible with other obligations." Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Faculty Handbook, Ch. VIII, "Institutional Policies," §4.2, "Distribution of TRP."
I.3.4.d University of California at San Francisco ("UCSF")
The UCSF Investigator's Handbook indicates that the results of sponsored research are generally "freely discoverable" under California's freedom of information statute in light of the UCSF's status as an instrumentality of the state.
"The right of access to information about public agencies is guaranteed by state and federal statutes, and is increasingly being invoked by individuals and non-governmental groups seeking information about University activities and the activities of individual faculty members . . . . By and large, only personnel information and proprietary data can be withheld from disclosure. It should be emphasized that only information on funded proposals is released . . . . In practical terms . . . the records of every UCSF investigator's funded activities are potentially subject to public disclosure.
"Because such information is essentially freely discoverable by research competitors, private industry, animal rights activists, and others, whose rights are protected and whose needs are legitimate, but whose intent is not always in the best interests of UCSF or its faculty, prudence dictates that faculty adopt certain judicious practices as their research activities are documented."
University of California at San Francisco, UCSF Investigators' Handbook § VI, "Research Integrity: Policies and Procedures" (last updated June 18, 1997).
I.3.4.e University of Minnesota
The University of Minnesota's Board of Regents has adopted a sponsored research policy under which "[t]he University...shall not accept support from any source for research under a contract or a grant, even though it meets the requirements of subdivision 1, if the contract or grant limits the full and prompt public dissemination of results or specifically permits retroactive classification, except for reasons found compelling by the University community through the review process outlined in section II. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, Policy, Research Secrecy (last amended Oct. 8, 1971).
I.3.4.f University of New Mexico
The University of New Mexico Faculty Handbook sets forth a "Classified Research Policy" stating that "the University will request from the potential sponsor unrestricted dissemination of the procedures and the results of the research." University of New Mexico, Board of Regents, Faculty Handbook, § D, "Research and Publication," "Classified Research Policy" (approved Mar. 13, 1973).
I.3.4.g University of Pennsylvania
The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Handbook sets forth the following condition for any agreement between the University and a research sponsor: "Unrestricted dissemination of all findings and conclusions derived from the project must be an integral part of the agreement, except where the privacy of an individual is concerned. The University regards any infringement on complete access to research findings as detrimental to free inquiry." University of Pennsylvania, Handbook: Faculty and Academic Administrators, § III.4, "Administrative Requirements for Sponsored Programs" (adopted Apr. 7, 1981).
