The editorial "Finding research balance' is misses the point of the new data access law.
The law does not simply require "all data" produced under federal research grants to be readily accessible to the public. It requires that all data paid for by taxpayers and used to support federal policy and rules be made available through the Freedom of Information Act -- hardly an insidious law and one I'm sure the Times has itself used FOIA to obtain information from the government.
FOIA has provisions that address medical privacy and intellectual property rights -- so fearmongering about the new law is simply without merit.
The Times is correct that the impetus for the law was the refusal of Harvard researchers to release data concerning then- proposed EPA air quality standards. But it was Congress that made the request that was ultimately refused.
Galileo is a good example of "silencing science." But so is the refusal to turn over information used to regulate the public. Surely, the Times does not advocate 'secret science.'
Corporations whose products are regulated by the government are compelled to turn over every scrap of data to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Why should the government be protected from the same?
It is ironic that the Times, undoubtedly a proponent of the public's right to know about industrial chemicals in the environment would oppose the public's right to know about information used as the basis for regulation.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.