Brooke on the Stirling FOI case

Heather Brooke in the Guardian writes in support of the position I took on Philip Morris's line on FOI compliance for universities:

The UK's FoI law is meant to be applicant blind. This means anyone can ask a public body for official information and there should be no discrimination based on the identity of the person asking. In the case of scientific research conducted and funded in the public's name, there is a strong argument that the underlying data and methodology should be disclosed. It is precisely this transparency that grants research reports their status as robust investigations.

Good for her.

Comments

[Bruce Hoult]

Perhaps requests should be made via a neutral organization whose job it is to file off the serial numbers, and chase up timely responses.

But how to stop them being corrupted by nice lunches and hot and cold running call girls?

[KnR]

One rule of law for all, even if that is for people you don't like , or its not worth a dam.

[Peter Walsh]

KnR

One Rule to rule them all, one rule to find them
One Rule to bring them all and in Their darkness blind them,

(With apologies to JRR Tolkien)

[Roddy Campbell]

The whole article is worth reading. Excellent. Very sound on the benefits of the profit motive as it relates to FoI.

[jorgekafkazar]

Excellent. Heather Brooke has it right. The more these universities and so-called scientists scream and drag their heels to avoid compliance with FOI, the more it is evident they have something seriously wrong to hide.

[anymouse]

I wonder what would happen if an academic asked for the data?