II.9.3 Administrative Costs and Other Burdens on Awardees

Criticism: The revised Circular would lead to tremendous increases in administrative burdens and costs for awarding agencies and the need for universities and researchers to create formal bureaucracies to respond to requests.

Response: Basic costs associated with maintaining good data management practices necessary to respond to agency requests for research data should be built into the budget of the research entity, similar to the costs of good laboratory practices. Researchers already have an obligation to maintain their data in a format accessible to the awarding agency.

The revisions to Circular A-110 should assure that incremental costs of the researcher to respond to the FOIA request will be reimbursed whenever possible. Researchers should not need a new paper-handling bureaucracy, however, because the existing Circ. A-110 requires research institutions to have a records management system (including for data) in place already. To the extent that major new equipment or data retrieval systems are required to respond to FOIA requests, these costs should be borne by the FOIA requester, and OMB should provide guidance to the agencies in determining fair allocation of these costs among the awardee and the requester(s).

Moreover, the responding researcher or institution would be required to produce for disclosure any particular data set only once. Thereafter, additional requests for the same data would be handled by the awarding agency.

After an adjustment period, the scientific process will become more efficient on the part of individual investigators. Investigators will perform data collection with the possibility of subsequent requests for access in mind, therefore improving the initial management of data. Increased efficiency will undoubtedly decrease the cost of data management, as well as minimize the required cost of responding to requests for access.

Criticism: Interest groups or other members of the public could target particular scientists or institutions, seeking to delay their research while they respond to burdensome requests.

Response: The responding researcher or institution would be required to produce to the government for disclosure any particular data set only once. Thereafter, additional requests for the same data would be handled by the awarding agency. Outside interest groups therefore will be unable to interfere with the work of "targeted" researchers through the filing of duplicative FOIA requests.

The proposed revisions to Circular A-110 normally defer release of data until after publication of research results, and thus should minimize any concerns about interest groups trying to disrupt current research. Responding to a FOIA request for data from previous research should not unduly disrupt the researcher's current research.

Moreover, efficient data management should minimize the time required to respond to individual requests. The data collection and management practices of investigators will become more efficient after an adjustment period. Therefore, responding to data requests from previous research should not become burdensome, and should not disrupt current research.

Finally, this criticism should also be considered from the reverse point of view. Very often a scientist's published conclusions place, in effect, a "burdensome request" on companies, organizations or individuals (including other scientists whose previous work is challenged) who must respond to the work of the first scientist. Scientific publication by its very nature involves an element of criticism, and it is through this process of analytical reexamination and criticism -- part of our traditional notion of checks and balances -- that scientific advances are made.

Criticism: FOIA regulations assessing user fees on parties requesting information provide for the payment of funds into the U.S. Treasury. How will the funds be transferred to researchers and grant recipients who are forced to respond to FOIA requests?

Response: OMB should construct a mechanism providing for payment from the FOIA requester directly to the awardee, without the need for funds to flow through the awarding agency or the Treasury. OMB can undertake and achieve these procedural revisions before the close of the current fiscal year, October 1, 1999.

Criticism: There is a vast diversity and complexity of research data, much of it requiring the explanation of scientists to understand. Unless they want their data to be misinterpreted, researchers will be forced to spend considerable time and resources to become "transporters" of data for the government and the requesters.

Response: The proposed revisions do not require researchers to explain the data, only to make it available to the public under FOIA. If the data are not released until after publication of the research results, then the researcher will have had opportunity to explain the data in the publication.

Also, the potential for misinterpretation of raw data may lead investigators to more fully document the methods employed in the production of published results. These methods, if more detailed than those provided in the publication, might be provided as part of the requested data. A reasonable cost reimbursement should be provided to the researcher or other awardee if the data requester obtains assistance from the researcher in understanding the data.

Finally, as noted above, criticism is part of the traditional checks and balances of the scientific process. Researchers who believe their work has been misinterpreted or misrepresented can respond in a subsequent publication.