When tax dollars pay for a scientific study, should the public be allowed to see the results? Of course. And now it can, thanks to a provision in the '99 federal budget law.
Turns out the new budget isn't all bad. But why did Congress need to write a law that lets citizens see the data from research they funded in the first place? Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency wondered the same thing.
There is a good reason. For two years, the feds have refused to release the data from a major study on public health. We're not talking about a Rand Corp. report on the effectiveness of smart bombs, or a Defense Department analysis of Saddam Hussein's top lieutenants. The EPA has been witholding data about your respiratory system.
Here's the story: In November '96, EPA chief Carol Browner held a press conference to pitch new regulations to make America's air cleaner. Specifically, the EPA wanted to reduce emissions of chemicals that cause smog and so- called particulate matter, or PM in bureaucratese. These are tiny soot particles emitted by cars and factories.
Reducing emissions to the government's desired levels could cost taxpayers more than $ 60 billion a year, by the administration's own estimates. To justify that kind of expense, the EPA needed to show that America's air quality represented a genuine threat to public health.
Would new regulations be worth the new financial sacrifices? Even supporters of the EPA weren't so sure.
Dr. Barry Levy, president of the American Public Health Association, appeared on the PBS program I produce, TechnoPolitics, to support the new rules. When asked whether the new standards represented the best use of public health dollars, Levy called it "an open question."
The EPA claimed it had solid evidence that soot particles were killing people, thanks to a federally funded study conducted by Dr. Joel Schwartz and other researchers at Harvard University's School of Public Health.
There was just one problem - the EPA wouldn't release the Harvard data. Neither would Schwartz.
The EPA said that, even though federal dollars had paid for the study, releasing the underlying data was unnecessary because the results justified the new rules.
Schwartz, for his part, said that a confidentiality agreement signed by study participants prevented the release of the research data.
When we asked for a copy of the agreement, Schwartz demurred, "I don't know how to find one," adding that each agreement was signed long ago. "God knows what file it's in," he said.
Harvard later sent a copy of the agreement. It reads: "Your identity and your relationship to any information obtained by reason of your participation in this study of respiratory symptoms will be kept confidential and will not otherwise be disclosed except as specifically authorized by you."
The obvious solution was to release the data with names and distinguishing information removed. But EPA and Harvard still chose to keep the results under wraps.
Harvard said that even without the name, the details of a person's death could compromise privacy. But that doesn't explain why Schwartz wouldn't even release his air-quality measurements.
Under public pressure, the EPA announced that it would give the data to an independent panel to evaluate it. That was more than a year ago. Scientific skeptics are still waiting for a chance to check Schwartz's work.
Some members of Congress apparently grew tired of waiting, so they added a little-known provision to the omnibus spending law. Government agencies will now have to release federally funded research data to anyone who submits a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
As far as Harvard's study goes, there's no word yet on whether EPA's Carol Browner will claim researcher-client privilege. James Freeman is senior producer of the PBS television program TechnoPolitics and editor of KnowledgeDaily.com, an online educational magazine.
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.
Copyright © 1998 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved on original material. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use." Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of Steven J. Milloy.