A study from the Harvard School of Public Health (SPH) has recently become part of the debate over the 1977 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the release of research data.

A SPH study that formed the basis for the EPA's tightening of gasoline and clean air regulations is the center of this debate. In an effort to get the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release data from this study, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed three FOIA requests last week to the EPA.

William Kovacs, vice president of environment and regulatory affairs for the Chamber of Commerce, said the reforms involve changing regulations that would cost taxpayers anywhere from $50 to $150 billion. Given this impact, Kovacs said it is only reasonable to expect the EPA to disclose the study on which they are basing their actions.

"What they have disclosed are the results that they want to talk about," Kovacs said. "We want our researchers to analyze the data for themselves. The EPA can believe what they want to believe."

But officials at the SPH have said that confidentiality agreements with the subjects of the studies prevent them from releasing the data in any form, even if names are not used.

"Basically the issue here is that the research data was collected under pledges of confidentiality to the research subject. There was a commitment made to these people that it would not be released," said James H. Ware, dean for public affairs at the SPH. "The data was provided on the condition that it wouldn't get out."

Officials at the Chamber of Commerce say that if the EPA is going to implement such drastic measures to improve what they deem the poor health of the country, they need to justify their actions.

"The standards are being set based on this study. If there are actual health effects, then it is fine," Kovacs said. "If you say you are going to limit highway construction and put serious limitations on and virtually halt industrial productions, you have to have some basis of fact."