COMMENT BY: National Center for Public Policy Research
SUBJECT: In favor of proposed revision to OMB Circular A-110
DATE: April 1, 1999

Dear Mr. Charney:

Thanks to the efforts of Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), last year Congress approved a provision within the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Law that makes it possible for the public to obtain and review research data developed during research conducted with federal grants.

Specifically, the law requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to make all federally-funded research data available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In keeping with the provisions of the FOIA, research data developed under federal contracts, affecting national security, trade secrets and commercial information, medical and personnel records, law enforcement information and geological data are exempt from this new "sunshine in government" provision.

In our view, this new law is important, even critical, because research data is currently used by the federal government to develop and defend federal policies, findings and regulations. Yet, in the past, when members of the public have objected to these policies, or even challenged them in court, they have had no right to examine the science the government said justified their policies and rules.

Worse, in some cases, government agencies have actually exploited the fact that the public wasn't permitted to review scientific data it had paid for by deciding in advance what conclusions it wanted scientists to reach in their research, and then hiring the scientists who would give them only the results the government wanted. On other occasions, without the approval or knowledge of any government agency, researchers have reached conclusions on matters of important public interest that were not warranted by the results of their research.

In a Roper Starch Worldwide poll conducted in 1997, 92% of the public said it agreed with Shelby's position: specifically, that basic data from government-funded research studies that are used to support a government policy or regulation should be released to the people, the communities, and/or the businesses that will be affected by the policy or the regulation. 80% said they would question the trustworthiness of a study whose results were kept secret.

Not only does the public have a right to view what it paid for, but an open research process is likely to lead to more honest, more reliable research. For this reason, our foundation is making support for this "sunshine" provision a priority. We have spoken about this matter to approximately two dozen think tanks that work with us on environmental issues, and we have written about it in several forums, including my syndicated column, in a fax alert sent to nearly 3,000 broadcast and print journalists, and in a National Policy Analysis paper published by our foundation and distributed in print nationally, on Capitol Hill, and also on the Internet. I have enclosed for your reference a copy of the paper and of the column as it appeared in one paper, the March 31, 1999 Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.

We understand that critics of the bill fear that participants in federally-funded medical research studies will be reluctant to divulge personal information if this bill is enforced. In our opinion, the current FOIA law, which prohibits the disclosure of "personnel and medical files and similar files of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," are sufficient to prevent this eventuality. We also have reviewed critics' concern that responding to FOIA requests may be expensive for recipients of federal grants. In our view, language in the law permitting researchers to charge a user fee to those requesting public data deals sufficiently with this concern, especially as researchers are permitted to bill in advance if expenses relating to compliance with a FOIA request exceed $250.

Frankly, we believe that many critics of proper enforcement of this law have a political or ideological motive. We don't argue the facts here: Releasing data to the public can be politically or ideologically inconvenient at times. But democracy isn't always convenient - it just beats all the alternatives.

We respectfully request, therefore, that the OMB undertake to enforce this "sunshine in government" law by letting, as much as legally possible, the sun shine in. We urge you to place public accountability above politics or ideology as you enforce this law.

Sincerely yours,

Amy Ridenour
President