| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | = Public Access to Publicly Funded Data = | | = Public Access to Publicly Funded Data = |
| | + | |
| | + | == Information Quality Act == |
| | + | |
| | + | The Information Quality Act (IQA), also known as the Data Quality Act, provides that:<ref>Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 1(a)(3) [Title V, § 515](Dec. 21, 2000) (published at 44 U.S.C. 3516 note).</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | :The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 [this section] of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code [this chapter], commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act. |
| | + | |
| | + | In furtherance of the goals of the statute, the IQA requires federal agencies to "establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines [of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information]."<ref>Ibid.</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | Many federal agencies have implemented the IQA by establishing administrative petition and review mechanisms by which parties can address their grievances. For example, the [[HHS]] has established for both an initial petition and an administrative appeal:<ref>See United States Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and [*3] Integrity of Information Disseminated to the Public, http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/Guidelines/part1.shtml.</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | :Based on a review of the information provided, the agency will determine whether a correction is warranted and if, so what action to take. The agency will respond to the requestor by letter or e-mail. The agency's response will explain the findings of the review and the actions that the agency will take, if any. The response will consider the nature and timeliness of the information involved and such factors as the significance of the correction on the use of the information, the magnitude of the correction and the resource requirements for the correction. The response will describe how the complainant may request reconsideration. The agency will respond to all requests for correction within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the agency will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date .... |
| | + | |
| | + | :If the individual submitting the complaint does not agree with the agency's decision (including the corrective action), the complainant may send a written hard copy or electronic request for reconsideration within 30 days of receipt of the agency's decision. The appeal shall state the reasons why the agency response is insufficient or inadequate. Complainants shall attach a copy of their original request and the agency response to it, clearly mark the appeal with the words, "Information Quality Appeal," and send the appeal to the specific agency appeals address. |
| | + | |
| | + | :The agency official who handles the original complaint will not have responsibility for resolving the appeal. The agency will respond to all requests for appeals within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the agency will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date. |
| | + | |
| | + | Most federal litigation seeking disclosure of federally funded research invokes this the IQA.<ref>See, e.g., Americans for Safe Access v. United States HHS, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55597 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2007).</ref> |
| | | | |
| | == Circular A-110 == | | == Circular A-110 == |
| Line 23: |
Line 41: |
| | For a variety of reasons that focused primarily on procedure and standing, a lawsuit invoking Circular A-110 to obtain underlying data from a federally funded research was unsuccessful in ''Salt Inst. v. Thompson'', 345 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004), ''aff'd'', 440 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2006). | | For a variety of reasons that focused primarily on procedure and standing, a lawsuit invoking Circular A-110 to obtain underlying data from a federally funded research was unsuccessful in ''Salt Inst. v. Thompson'', 345 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004), ''aff'd'', 440 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2006). |
| | | | |
| − | == Contractual Arguments == | + | == University Policies == |
| | + | |
| | + | Some universities may have policies requiring researchers to make their data available to others. (add more) |
| | + | |
| | + | == State Law == |
| | + | |
| | + | State laws may require researchers to make their underlying data available to others, particularly if the research was performed at a state university. (add more) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Grant Conditions == |
| | + | |
| | + | Some federal grants may require that recipients make their underlying data available to others. (add more) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Contractual Obligations == |
| | | | |
| | A contractual argument for access to underlying data could be based on representations made by journals that present claims to the public. For example, the JNAS asserts that authors in its published articles will make data available to other researchers under certain conditions. | | A contractual argument for access to underlying data could be based on representations made by journals that present claims to the public. For example, the JNAS asserts that authors in its published articles will make data available to other researchers under certain conditions. |