The scientific research community supports the idea of intellectual honesty. Business has always wanted to see and double-check the science that underlies important federal rules. And some in Congress think everyone should have access to scientific data collected with taxpayer dollars. But as the Office of Management and Budget works on a rule that would allow anyone to take a peek at the scientific calculations that go into devising thousands of federal rules and policies, the scientific, university and medical communities are scrambling to limit broad access to this data. Critics argue that under Shelby's law, anyone wanting to peer into the work of researchers could have a field day, since 60 percent of the scientific research conducted at colleges and universities is funded by the federal government.
Researchers have a long list of worries.
They predict that confidentiality agreements with research subjects would be breached, companies' proprietary information could fall into the hands of competitors, and funding relationships between universities and private industry would be jeopardized. Others in the research and regulatory arenas are looking for a middle ground. Robert Hahn, director of the Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, and Linda Cohen, an economics professor at the University of California at Irvine, suggest tailoring access to the documents. There are many self-styled experts of federal regulation perched at Washington think tanks, consulting groups and advocacy organizations. Much of what they have to say reflects whether they embrace regulation as a necessary good or loathe it as a common evil.