For years, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health have been sounding the alarm on the health dangers of microscopic particles in the air. An epidemiologic study of air pollution in six U.S. cities showed conclusively, these researchers say, that particles measuring less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are some of the most toxic substances in the air. While the findings of the Six Cities Study have prompted serious debate for some time, it wasn't until this year that they ignited into full-blown controversy. And with the estimate came a demand to examine Harvard's data. When Harvard's researchers refused to release their raw data and accompanying analysis on the basis that much of it is confidential personal medical information, it touched off public, academic, and congressional debate on the issue of public access to federally funded research.
Scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public for several reasons.
The one cited most often is the need to protect the confidentiality of subjects and their personal information. Researchers argue that if the information subjects provide to researchers may become public, people will be less likely to participate in studies, thereby having a chilling effect on research. Another reason is competition among scientists. Researchers may withhold data, not wishing for other scientists to easily benefit from the fruits of their own scientific labors, or because they plan to build on the data in future research and do not want these future efforts undermined or extracted. The argument that publicly funded researchers should provide access to data is based on the contention that the use of public dollars makes the data public property.