Research data produced in both universities and the NHS are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This article examines the practical and ethical implications of freedom of information for research data, arguing that increased openness is both here to stay and is ethically justifiable. Researchers need to learn how best to cope with this.
Bellamy v the Information Commissioner and the DTI, (EA/2005/0023, 4 April 2006)).
7.
The ICO summarize their advice on public interest follows: ‘something which is “in the public interest” may be summarised as something which serves the interests of the public. The public interest test entails a public authority deciding whether, in relation to a request for information, it serves the interests of the public either to disclose the information or to maintain an exemption or exception in respect of the information requested. To reach a decision, a public authority must carefully balance opposing factors, based on the particular circumstances of the case. Where the factors are equally balanced, the information must be disclosed.’ http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/fep038_public_interest_test_v3.pdf.
8.
More open but not more trusted? The effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government. Governance23.42010: 561–582.
9.
As Worthy points out, there is a paradox at the heart of FOI legislation: FOI aims to empower individual citizens to find out information about the workings and internal data flows of public bodies, by giving each person an entitlement to request a wide range of information. However, complying with each request takes time, and there are seldom any extra resources allocated to deal with FOI requests. So, as things stand, the FOI system will only be workable if not many people in fact make use of it. If each adult UK citizen made one FOI request per year, national and local government would have to cope with more than forty million FOI requests, and would be completely paralysed.
10.
More open but not more trusted? The effect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the United Kingdom central government. Governance23.42010: 561–582 at p.576.
11.
Roberts, Alasdair. Free to distrust. Prospect 20 Feb 2005. On this topic, see also O'Neill, Onora. Autonomy and trust in bioethics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.
The Information Commissioner ruled against Queen's University Belfast, in this 2010 case. Notice though that the case was not brought under FOIA, but under the EU Environmental Information Regulations (Council Directive 2003/4/EC). For the judgment, see http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50163282.pdf.
14.
FOIA provides access to the data, but any underlying intellectual property (IP) rights in the data remain with the IP owner. Collections of facts are as such not usually captured by copyright law, but in the EU there is a sui generis IP right called a Database Right which covers databases, and which could provide protection for some research data. If the IP owner holds an IP right in the data, this places limits on the possibility of the FOI requester publishing the data. This is scheduled to change: the Protection of Freedoms Bill will amend section 11 of FOIA, and will require public authorities to release their information under a licence which will allow reuse.
15.
I am aware of very few cases in which researchers have used FOIA against their rivals in this way. Most researchers I have spoken to consider that it would be unethical to do so.
16.
WilsonJames. Could there be a moral right to own intellectual property?Law and Philosophy2009: 28(4): 393–427. Wilson, James. Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. Monist 2010, No 3.
17.
It is illegal to delete or destroy information about which an FOI request has been made, but it is not illegal to destroy data or information before it has been requested. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/FOIresearchdata, FAQ 19.
18.
Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age (National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2009), recommendation 5.
