February 23, 1999

Dear Member of the National Academy of Sciences:

We are writing about a recent letter from Bruce Alberts, president of the
National Academy of Sciences, that misleads and alarms the public and
scientific community regarding a new law intended to insure public access
to scientific data used to support government policy and regulations. The
public has the right to know the basis for government policy and regulations.
Dr. Alberts' letter (naslett) undermines
this fundamental principle.

Last October, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-277 -- the "data access" law -- (confrept) to "ensure that all data produced
under a [federal grant or contract] will be made available to the public through
the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA). The White
House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed on February 4, 1999 to revise
federal grant policy (OMB Circular A-110) to implement the provisions of the new law. (a110prop)

The legislative history (congrec )quoted in OMB's
proposed rule makes it clear that the scope of law is to "provide the public with
access to federally funded research data used by the federal government in developing
policy and rules." The law and rule simply codify basic principles of the scientific
method concerning the sharing of data that may be necessary for verifying the scientific
grounds for government policy and rules.

The impetus for the law was a refusal by grant recipients of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to release data to Congress in 1997 (ibddata).
Those data, from two questionable epidemiologic studies, were the bases for EPA's 1996
proposal of new air quality standards -- regulations estimated to cost the public tens
of billions of dollars per year. Congress had requested the data so that the studies'
results could be independently confirmed.

Epidemiologic data differ from experimental and laboratory data. While disclosure of
materials and methods usually provides sufficient information for attempted replication
of experimental and laboratory studies, this is insufficient in epidemiology.

Epidemiologic data are collected from populations of people, and no two populations
are alike. Given that many studies used to support government policy and rules report
results at the edge of epidemiology's credibility, examination of those studies requires
access to the same data set.

Dr. Alberts' letter, written on behalf of the Council of the National Academy of Sciences
and sent one week before OMB proposed the rule, flatly opposes the new law. Dr. Alberts'
letter largely ignores its intent and scope. Given the Academy's prestige, Dr. Albert's
letter is needlessly alarming the scientific community and the public who may be unaware
of the purpose of the data access law.

Among other things, Dr. Alberts claimed that the rule would interfere with medical privacy
and researchers' proprietary rights to data. The data access law and proposed rule address
these concerns through safeguards in the Freedom of Information Act. Privacy and proprietary
rights are legitimate issues, but procedures are in place to protect them. In light of prior
National Research Council reports on data sharing, raising these issues as novel problems is
fear mongering.

Dr. Alberts' letter identifies "astronomers, molecular biologists, atmospheric chemists,
high energy physicists, geoscientists, clinical investigators, plant biologists, materials
scientists and engineers, etc." as potentially subject to the new rule. Epidemiologists are
not mentioned, even though their data, insofar as they are used to justify federal policy
and rules, are the primary focus of the law.

Whatever motivated Dr. Alberts' letter, its effect is to shield members of the government-funded
epidemiologic community from data sharing and, ultimately, scientific scrutiny. The entire
scientific community may pay a price for such "secret science" beyond the dollars wasted
on potentially unfounded regulations. Scientific secrets and withheld data may result in
a loss of public confidence in scientists, and lead members of the public to view all
science with suspicion. (secret)

We invite you to read the cross-linked Internet material. Decide for yourself whether the
law and the rule threatens scientists and science as Dr. Alberts charges, or whether it
will provide the public (including skeptics) access to data that are "used by the federal
government in developing policy and rules."

You can send your comments to OMB at fcharney@omb.eop.gov including all your comments
in the body of the email (no attachments) or by mail to F. James Charney, Policy Analysis,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington DC 20503.
The deadline for comments is April 5, 1999.

We would appreciate a copy of your comments. We expect that Dr. Alberts would also.

Sincerely,

Michael Gough
Steven J. Milloy

Citizens for the Integrity of Science
1155 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: 202-467-8586
Fax: 202-467-0768
E-mail: info@cfis.org