快猫短视频

THE Clinton administration announced last week that it plans to put strict
limits on a law that gives the public access to government-funded research.
快猫短视频s were worried that the law would force them to turn over copies of
their lab books and data to any citizen who asked for them.

Congress passed the law last October as a 鈥渞ider鈥� tacked onto a 4000-page
appropriations bill, with no public debate about its possible consequences.
Researchers became concerned that the law could allow theft of intellectual
property, threaten the privacy of volunteer research subjects, and potentially
overwhelm labs with paperwork. 鈥淚t would be just a terrible burden on the whole
scientific enterprise,鈥� says Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington DC.

快猫短视频s want to avoid what happened to Deborah Swackhamer of the
University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Swackhamer鈥檚 research sought to identify
sources of pollution in the Great Lakes. Using Minnesota鈥檚 open-records laws, a
New York lawyer suddenly began requesting thousands of records on behalf of a
mystery client. 鈥淚t took hundreds of hours of my time,鈥� says Swackhamer.

The new law鈥檚 sponsor, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, was responding to
industry鈥檚 concerns about access to publicly funded research that influences
government legislation. 鈥淲e paid for it, so we should have a right to it,鈥� says
Andrea Andrews, a spokesperson for Shelby.

The Office of Management and Budget has now proposed revising the law so as
to allow public access only to published work that is used in developing
government policy. It has invited comment on its proposals before the law is
finalised in April. Researchers would still prefer to see the law totally
repealed, and Representative George Brown of California has introduced a bill to
do so.