Re[2]: NAS President's Statement on FOIA Initiative Relating to Rele

[Louis Iselin <eyefly@flash.net>]

As written and presented, this letter from the President of the NAS
supports junk science and bad public policy.

By misrepresenting the proposed rule, support for keeping data sets
confidential looks reasonable.  While I agree in principle with Mike's concern
over data that are not yet properly reviewed, federally funded data sets that
are paid for with tax dollars should be publicly available As Soon As 
Reasonably Achievable.

It appears to me that the letter writer did not even read the proposed rule change,
which I quote (from a secondary source):

Pursuant to the direction of P.L. 1050277, OMB hereby proposes to amend
section 36(c) of OMB Circular A-110 to read as follows: 

(c) The Federal Government has the right to (1) obtain, reproduce, publish
or otherwise use the data first produced under an award, and (2) authorize
others to receive, reproduce, publish or otherwise use such data for Federal
purposes. In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for data relating to published research produced under an award that
were used by the Federal Government in developing policy or rules, the
Federal awarding agency shall, within a reasonable time, obtain the requested
data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures
established under FOIA. If the Federal awarding agency obtains the data solely
in response to a FOIA request, the agency may charge the requester a reasonable
fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the data. This fee should reflect
costs incurred by the agency, the recipient and applicable subrecipients. This fee
is in addition to any fees the agency may assess under the FOIA (5.U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)).

On Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:07:20 -0600 (CST)
"Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov> wrote:

Weiner,> I believe this is an excellent letter and deserves lots of letters in
Weiner,> support of its thesis.  Making undefined "data" available is
ill-advised in
Weiner,> the extreme.  For example, I do a lot of transportation risk analyses.  I
Weiner,> make mistakes!  I then correct them.  We have found errors in our final
Weiner,> documents.  Often we cannot make revisions right away.  When I do
Weiner,> experimental work, these problems are even more acute -- I have spent lots
Weiner,> of time puzzling over inconsistent or strange results only to figure out
Weiner,> that a detector had malfunctioned.  

The real question is, "Do you publish and then still refuse to grant access to the
data on which you based your publication?"

Weiner,> What if the anti-nuke opponents who breathe down our necks all the time got
Weiner,> hold of bad or inconsistent or inexplicable data?  What a way to choke off
Weiner,> research!

The purpose for this letter is no doubt in response to the backlash to the EPA
drive to set clean air standards for particulate matter based on published research
where the supporting data sets are not being released.  The EPA has been trying
to establish policy and regulations on data sets that have NEVER been peer reviewed,
independently analyzed, or replicated.

In many ways, support for this letter represents an anti-nuke's wildest
dream.  The ability to obtain taxpayer funding, conduct "research",
publish "results",
establish "conclusions" in the peer reviewed literature, and help create policy and
regulations WITHOUT having to defend the conclusions from ANY independent
analysis of the data until years later, when the damage is irreversible.

Another key issue here is that a paper can be published where the methodology
and conclusions are peer reviewed without the actual data sets being reviewed
at all.

This topic is not as clear cut as you may have been led to believe.

-Louis

Louis H. Iselin, Ph.D.
eyefly@flash.net

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html