Washington

Controversial rules giving greater access to scientists' raw data under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are to be tested, following a request from the US Chamber of Commerce to see data held by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The chamber has submitted three requests for the data from university studies on the sulphur content of petrol, the health effects of particulate matter and the vulnerability of poor people to pollution. The EPA used these data to justify environmental regulations.

The requests exceed the scope of the rules laid down last year by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see Nature 401, 732; 1999). As a result, the EPA will probably refuse to release the information. But the Chamber of Commerce says that in that case it will go to court to get the data.

A court showdown would bring simmering tensions in the scientific community to the boil. Scientists have opposed FOIA access to university researchers' data, arguing that it would lead to the harassment of researchers in sensitive fields. The business community says it needs such access to challenge what it views as unreasonable regulation by the EPA and other agencies.

Harvard University's refusal to hand over data from a study on particulates led Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama) to introduce a 1998 amendment stating that “all data” from university research performed for the government should accessible under the FOIA (see Nature 397, 459; 1999).

The OMB was ordered to draw up rules to implement the amendment. But the Chamber of Commerce has dismissed these as “half-hearted”.

The OMB rules exempt certain classes of data and only apply to research that underpins new regulations. The Chamber of Commerce is requesting all of the data from studies that underpin old regulations.

If refused, the Chamber will argue in court that the OMB rules conflict with the intent of both the amendment and the Freedom of Information Act itself.

University scientists are concerned that FOIA requests will be costly and may impugn their independence. The US Chamber of Commerce argues that publicly funded work should be available to the public.