February 25, 1999 | Read Time: 3 minutes
Many universities, hospitals, and other non-profit institutions that receive federal grant money for research are balking at a requirement that would impose new public-disclosure obligations on them. And some observers fear the requirement could open the door to additional regulation of all federal grantees.
The Office of Management and Budget is in the process of revising its rules for federal grantees to carry out Congressional legislation.
Under the federal agency’s proposed guidelines, non-profit groups would have to turn over all supporting data and other information related to research “used by the federal government in developing policy or rules” if the agency that awarded the grant received a request for the materials under the Freedom of Information Act.
The requirement, which was approved by Congress last fall as part of a massive spending bill, went virtually unnoticed until recently.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who was the key legislator behind the change, described his support last fall by saying: “The lack of public access to research data feeds general public mistrust of the government and undermines support for major regulatory programs.”
But OMB Watch, a Washington public-policy group, fears that the disclosure requirement could make it easier to pass new restrictions on all non-profit groups that receive federal grants.
“This provision represents a dangerous precedent in treating federal grantees as surrogates of the federal government,” said Matt Carter, a spokesman for OMB Watch. “Once you cross this line, it allows many types of intrusions.”
For example, Mr. Carter said Congress might revive the idea of imposing new lobbying restrictions on non-profit groups that receive government money — an idea that has been considered and rejected in previous Congressional sessions.
Opponents of the research disclosure requirement have enlisted several members of Congress in their protest, including Rep. George E. Brown, Jr., a California Democrat who has introduced a bill to repeal the change.
Representative Brown not only criticized the merits of the revision, but also complained about the way in which it was enacted. “It is ironic,” he said, “that a provision which some have described as a sunshine provision was tucked into a 4,000-page bill in the dead of night.”
In letters to the Office of Management and Budget, several non-profit institutions expressed their concerns about the change. Some worried that they would no longer be able to guarantee anonymity to people who volunteer for medical and other research projects. Others said the change could bring added expenses and administrative work.
Gaylen Bradley, vice-president of academic affairs at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, wondered how broadly the disclosure requirement would be applied. “Does this include research in a building constructed in part with federal funds,” he asked, “or use of equipment purchased with federal funds?”
Organizations that still wish to comment on the proposed guidelines should write to F. James Charney, Public Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington 20503. Comments may also be sent electronically to fcharney@omb.eop.gov.
The proposed guidelines were published in the February 4 issue of the Federal Register, Pages 5684-85. The proposal can also be found by following the instructions for reading the Federal Register on a government World-Wide Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
