Bishop Hill FOI and universities
Sep 7, 2010 Climate: CRU FOI Tony Blair's recent expressions of regret over his introduction of the Freedom of Information Act have been much chewed over in the news recently.
If I sense things correctly this is just one symptom of something rather bigger. If I discern things correctly, there are moves afoot to start reining back on the scope of the Act. I can't quite recall what prompted me to do so, but a few weeks back I sent an FoI request to the Justice Ministry, the Whitehall department responsible for the FoI Act. I asked what meetings ministers and officials had had concerning possible changes to the application of the Act in universities. The answer came back that they "didn't hold the information". On its own this would be nothing, although a firmer answer - "no such meetings" would have been more encouraging.
But then there was this a heartfelt piece on the subject of FoI from Professor Edward Acton:
[T]here are dilemmas. If data gathered by researchers is to be disclosable before they have completed work on it, issues of commercial and intellectual property become acute. Take the recent ruling by the Information Commissioner (made under the FOIA’s twin, the Environmental Information Regulation) to force Queen’s University Belfast to hand over painstakingly assembled Irish Tree Ring data. Are we to find that commercial companies (located anywhere in the world – our FOIA is wonderfully cosmopolitan) may secure the release of the unworked data of every UK university?
As an aside, I think Doug Keenan, the man who forced QUB's hand on this issue, might take issue with some of this. For example, the data is decades old and so can hardly count as "unworked". Also, according to Queens itself, it was stored on an electronic medium that is already virtually obsolete - floppy disks, suggesting that it was not actually being used. Readers of the Hockey Stick Illusion will recognise these issues and will know that the data should have been stored in a secure repository designed for the purpose, such as the International Tree Ring Database.
But to return to the original theme, there has now been another strong hint that the bureaucrats are on the move. Today's You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4 discussed the question of Freedom of Information and featured someone from the University of Warwick declaring that he felt that universities should be exempt.
His reasoning for this involved a delicious misleading of the interviewer, Julian Worricker. He informed Worricker that Warwick receives 77% of its income "competively" and 23% direct from the state. This suggestion then led neatly into an insinuation that Warwick is 23% state funded (all those grants are competitive, right?), and since 23% is much less than some charities get from the state, universities should be exempt. Here, for those who are interested, is the relevant extract from the Warwick accounts:
Anyway, take a listen. The universities section starts at about 20 mins. Heather Brooke is featured later on, together with some minor discussion of climate.
Bishop Hill
Lord Oxburgh raised the subject of difficulties with the FoI Act in his Parliamentary hearing today. Definitely a pattern here.
Reader Comments (49)
Unfortunately, Edward Acton is a direct descendent from the Bonobo. Unable to gain satisfaction in the wide world, he has retreated to confines of Norwich to indulge in the inbreeding that was the ruin of the once great Norfolk stock.
All the more reason to get raw data on temperatures into the public domain. The public paid for it, the universities did not. At the moment, the UK met office is setting itself up as the repository, and that organisation may well be heading toward privatisation. Will they be allowed to own data paid for from the public purse of the UK and elsewhere? I should hope not.
The establishment is increasingly unhappy that the serfs are do not bow down sufficiently or with appropriate frequency. FOIA encourages the serfs to think for themselves. They keep us from learning to read, if they could.
In other words, society has a compelling interest in protecting the ability of scientist to profit from their prediction of imminent mass extinction of the human race. Its good work if you can get it.
To quote Geoffrey Boulton: "Exploiting this understanding in a society that has lost old habits of deference has become increasingly problematic such that the rules of engagement - between governors, the governed and the scientists and engineers and medics – need to change."
Forgive my ignorance, but has there ever been a thought in the UK that those who do the work and pay the bills have rights?
One penny of public funding - the public owns it. By public funding, I include everything, not just work directly related to the research. Heating not 100% paid for - public, using parking spaces paid for with more than one penny of public funds - public information!, eating at a subsidized canteen, using photocopiers, internet connections, computers etc. etc. paid for with more than one penny of public funds - public information.
If for-profit companies want to participate in university research, they do so on the understanding that any results will be public property, no patents, not copyright, just free information.
If they want to keep the information secret, they pay for its development.
The idea of university/industry cooperation was flawed from the beginning.
Yes they can participate, but on the understanding that they have absolutely zero "rights" to any data or results.
Ever wondered how much they pay Futerra?
From - Sell the Sizzle - Futerra. Media PR communication.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
CHOICE
Introduce hell
You’ve sold the sizzle so now
show the alternative. If you lead with a positive
vision, you don’t then have to pull your punches
on climate chaos.
The choice is now Make clear that change won’t
wait, and that the decision moment is now
-----------------------------------------------
Personal hell
Climate change doesn’t just affect
weather patterns and polar bears. Lay out the impacts
on hospitals, schools, and the local environment.
Hit lifestyles and aspirations. The more powerful
and compelling your vision, the more hard-hitting
you can make the threat of climate chaos.
-------------------
Sounds funny, take a long look at their client list..... (BBC, UK government,etc
http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/
"sell the Sizzle" - Futerra
Climate Change Deniers
Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they
ever went away). The edge of this group are
the conspiracy theorists who are sure that
climate science is an excuse for either (a) the
environmentalists to curtail consumption or
undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed
world to hold back the developing world.
-----------------------------------
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.
Any change to this act should be to restrict the time limit for responses and to lengthen the limit to prosecution. The UEA are guilty of breaking this act but cannot be prosecuted due to time restrictions - and at the same time are saying they are innocent.
No public body or any body which receives ANY public funding should be exempt.
But annoyingly our useless politicos will probably love to restrict it as this was the act that caught them stealing our money.
I have recently experienced the need to send an FOI request nothing to do with Universities though but the request certainly proved its worth.
About 5 months ago I received notification of an alleged speeding offence recorded with a safety camera device located along a motorway. I doubted the offence because normally it’s nose to tail traffic along this particular stretch of motorway because of the restrictions due to road works but the notification did arrive two weeks after the event so I could not be sure. My reaction was to ring the camera unit and ask a few questions. After mulling over the conversation I decided I was not happy with some of the answers so I wrote and requested details of the maintenance log, calibration certificate and a few other bits of information that I thought would be relevant.
Anyway to cut a long story short after 2 or 3 months of exchanging letters and telephone calls to numerous police departments at different locations and the camera unit also at a separate location with none of the original requested information forthcoming I made a FOI request for copies of all correspondence/emails between all police departments and the camera unit relative to my case, quoting my allocated reference number.
The FOI office wrote back telling me they could not pass on the information but I should make the request under the Data Protection Act 1988 which allows an individual to access information held concerning himself/herself.
I received the 4 page FOI refusal letter over a month ago now and so far I have heard nothing more about the alleged speeding but I have prepared a letter ready to apply for the relative correspondence under the Data Protection Act, just in case! I think if I had not used the FOI request I would have been forced to accept the charge, be a few quid light in my wallet and 3 points on my licence.
So thanks Mr Blair….oh ouch that hurt!
Sep 7, 2010 at 8:40 PM | stan
Stan there may be something in your comment I keep wondering why a nation would dumb down the education system and standards?
There is a very simple question to be asked.
Which is more important, saving the planet from CO2 or intellectual property rights?
If the answer is IPR then either the CO2 catastrophe link in the work is bogus or the scientist doesn’t give a damn about the planet. Either way it shouldn’t be used in any IPCC report, whether it is publicly funded or not.
If NuLab had retained power, I would have expected to see a serious re-working to tighten up the FOI act.
I'm probably being very naive, but I have greater expectations of the coalition.
Greensand,
There's a long answer, probably several; but the short answer is that times were good and it was easy to cultivate a climate where electoral success was made more likely by kidding people they could have something for nothing and not thinking about how the bills were eventually to be paid. The bills are not entirely monetary.
A more subtle and more modern version of Bread and Circuses.
Boulton's confusing himself. It's a long time since we, as a people, were "the governed". The nation state is governed, not its people. To believe that we are, as a people, governed in this day and age is to suggest that the public servant is the master of the public. He is not.
They simply don't get it do they.
They, the experts, demand that we turn our lives upside down on there say so. When we, the plebs, ask, "show us the data, all the data, show us the evidence, all the evidence", the experts cry, "we can't, we won't, it shouldn't be allowed".
Sep 7, 2010 at 10:32 PM | cosmic
Thanks Cosmic, I had to resort to Wiki (please don't tell)
"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).
In modern usage, the phrase has become an adjective to deride a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life. To many across the political spectrum, left and right, it connotes the triviality and frivolity that defined the Roman Empire prior to its decline.
If all the grey literature and undocumented work was left out of the IPCC reports would it read as follows?
We don’t ‘ave no stinking data to show you but you will just ‘ave to take our word ‘coz we is scientists innit. Trust us the planet is hot and that ain’t cool maaan. So rip on your oldies ‘coz it’s all their fault.
nb This has been rewritten by the IPCC PR department to appeal to the youth contingency, who appear to be the only people who still believe us. For our even younger audiences there is a big print edition that reads ‘clap your hands if you believe in the CO2 monster.’
p 3 : 'The core of Warwick‟s teaching and research activities is substantially funded through grants from public funding bodies, principally The Higher Education Funding Council for England and various Research Councils...'
p 29: 65 staff with remuneration exceeding 100K
p31: 'On 31 March 2004 the Group acquired control of Horticulture Research International, a company limited by guarantee, for a consideration of £1. The shortfall in consideration paid, below the fair value of assets acquired, was initially shown in the Group's balance sheet as a negative goodwill figure of £3,782k. The negative goodwill on acquisition of Horticulture Research International is being released to the Income and Expenditure Account over the period of 100 months (8 years 4 months), which matches the term of acquired significant research contracts.'
Negative goodwill? Amusing.
The hanging onto decades old data/materials and preventing its analysis by anyone else isn't confined to climate data.
The prolific collection of Burgess Shale fossils amassed by Charles Walcott between 1909 &1925, wasn't reanalysed until 1962, Walcott having died in 1927, his increasing workload preventing him properly examining many of his finds.
During his lifetime, it seems that other paleontolgists wouldn't trespass upon an area reguarded as Walcott's personal property and his widow defended his legacy thereafter.
I listened to this broadcast as I motored into work today.
Spookily I heard the 23% claim made just as I sighted the windmills proximate to the Good Bishops residence. My first thoughts were that of exultation followed by anticipation!
Hurrah that, the Allied British Universities Sinecure Expediting Syndicates, have, at last, provided quantifiable and robust numbers that lay bare the exaggerated claims of an opposition, aka anti-science fossilophising few, who bleat that our heroes are self-seeking villains.
So much for my exultation, my anticipation is for the withdrawal of ABUSES from the world of science.
I guess Blair figures the FOI act was only meant for "the little people".
Interesting how one's point of view changes when one's own ox is being gored.
All reminds me of the old saw about "'taxing the rich". Definition of "the rich": who ever earns more than me.
@stan:- They keep us from learning to read, if they could.
Considering that some 20% of 16 year-old school-leavers are functionally illiterate and almost completely innumerate it looks like "they" have made a damned-good start on the project!
@stan:- They keep us from learning to read, if they could.
Considering that some 20% of 16 year-old school-leavers are functionally illiterate and almost completely innumerate it looks like "they" have made a damned-good start on the project!
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:09 AM | Pogo
And once again, I am presented with evidence that deniers believe that the entirity of functional society, is somehow conspiring in an impossibly well-organised campaign against them.
There's no definition of 'them, 'us', or indeed 'how'. Just a sense of paranoia mixed with sadness.
Bish. You probably do read mine as you have a dissenter in the ranks. The layman might find it rather hard to square a blog that you moderate, which includes paranoid anti-education rants, and tips on rigging climate change messageboard voting, with your role in heading up an enquiry into the climategate enquries.
Do you ever worry that the man might be judged by the friends he keeps?
No Z.
A man is judged by the enemies he welcomes.
You are welcome.
z d b - only by those without the wit to judge based on evidence and argument.
Dear Bish
Acton is UEA right? Why, may we venture to think, is he invoking the Belfast example?
It might be, a "red herring" - as they speak of, in global warming circles.
We know from the "University" comments on the Russel review that they have problems releasing data and code, even after publication cycle is complete, for a body of work. To wit:
Panel: At the point of publication of research, enough information should be available for others to reconstruct the process of analysis, including the source code.
Response: The University accepts this should be the case, unless valuable intellectual property or other commercial constraints are in play.
Now Acton speaks of dilemmas involving "unworked data", as he wants to call it.
This indicates a strategy is cooking, to refuse reasonable requests for data and code, under the Shylockian guise that "more work is being done yet with that data" - post publication. Acton's statements meld very well with the submission of the Team to the Russell panel, in this regard.
zdb: "And once again, I am presented with evidence that deniers believe that the entirity of functional society, is somehow conspiring in an impossibly well-organised campaign against them."
Doesn't it bother you that you used 'functional society' in a serious context? It's clearly an oxymoron.
And we skeptics (as opposed to you gullibles) won't be expecting any thanks from you when the CAGW rort is fully exposed for the big grab at tax money that it clearly is.
ello Zeds ^.^
Instead of telling us what is wrong with this forum and those who post here, why dont you tell us what is right about the idiot suggestion that man is causing CAGW?
Tell us what you believe/know/understand (I am betting on a zero here but I stand ready to be amazed)
Two points. First, isn't it the case that material being prepared for publication is specifically exempted from FOI under the existing legislation? Second, I believe I recall pointing out that the Oxburgh report proposed new limitations on FOI as it applies to universities.
Z,
Accusing skeptics of seeing conspiracies everywhere is what is known in the field of psychology as 'projection'; ascribing to your opponents the disagreeable behaviour you yourself engage in.
Type 'well-funded climate change' into Google to see what I mean -- the search term is neutral but the results parrot a single line: "Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change..." (Newsweek), "An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night." .... Big Oil .... blah blah .... media bias against global warming ... blah blah .... right-wing groups .... etc etc
Most skeptics that I talk to think that the AGW scam has arisen through a largely accidental but very convenient alignment of interests between power-hungry narcissistic politicians, anti-capitalist environmentalists, rent-seeking scientists and scare-chasing journalists. No conspiracy required.
I stress that I am not against FoI at all, but have a few issues...
First, if you say that any organisation that receives public funding ought to be included, would this include, for example, companies from whom public bodies purchase goods or contract services? If not, why not? At what level would this kick in? For example I seem to recall a recommendation from years ago from the Accounting Standards Board that if a supplier has more than £0% I think it was of its turnover accounted for by one client that client should consolidate the suppliers accounts with their own.
I mean, what if someone in a council, say, runs out to buy a sandwich and for whatever reason is "entitled" to claim it back on expenses, would that not mean that the sandwich bar has "received public funding"?
On the other hand, regarding, say, commercial consultancy/research carried out by universities, I suspect that it would be quite easy to escape such a requirement. It's relatively trivial, say, to create a special purpose company or limited liability partnership (probably better) to surround such a research contract in such a way that the university would probably only have to declare under FoI that they had contributed staff and resources and what they got paid for that to an FoI request. I suspect that this would privatise the IP even more securely.
Finally, we have had some FoI requests that personally I don't think we should have had to fulfill. For example, someone recently wanted us to produce a list of names and contact details for every member of staff. Who knows what they wanted it for - I gather he may have been some disgruntled ex-employee of another university who has started a service allegedly enabling other university employee to "whistleblow" through his service and he may want to be able to contact everyone to offer then this service. A lot of this information is already on the staff search pages of our website. He could trawl that, and get information about individuals (probably the majority) who have opted in to being on the public search pages. But you know, for all we know, he could be from somewhere like "SPEAK" intent on firebombing the homes of anyone involved with animal research (we aren't so it's unlikely in our case but there could be some other sinister aim).
Still, in conversation once with a FoI officer from another public body some time ago, they said that actually many of the provisions of these laws, FoI, DPA, RIP and so on actually codify what such public bodies can *refuse* to disclose (because they have to produce a policy on data retention and access that they can then use to refuse requests amongst other things).
Would it not be better to use the US system where effectively such organisations are forced to put certain information into the public domain where anyone can get to them, rather tham having to make, and fight for, individual requests through FoI?
I see the spam man is about again! There are ways to block them Bish!
"Tony Blair's recent expressions of regret over his introduction of the Freedom of Information"
I wonder what Mrs Blair makes of that as she is a top "Human Rights" lawyer! Amazing how a little thing like an enquiry into a war or an examination of M.P.'s expenses can turn a politicians thinking around!
As an academic myself, I was fascinated to read this.
Three comments:
1) @PJP "One penny of public funding - the public owns it." Does that not strike you as just a tiny bit unbalanced? As Jock implies, I suspect that would leave nearly every enterprise 100% "pwned" by the public. I, for one, think that's very undesirable;
2)The issue of what percentage of public funding Warwick gets is a matter of serious internal as well as external confusion. Bishop Hill's figures above still do not tell the whole story since fees include substantial amounts of overseas fees and many grants and contracts are not funded by the state. Nevertheless, as I have said many times, 23% is a gross underestimate.
3)@Pharos "negative goodwill"-I'm not an accountant but in this case, I think the negative goodwill was very wise as a provision for future losses. I believe it mainly accounted for massive liabilities (actual and potential) to staff on civil service-style contracts that were acquired at the time of the "purchase". It may make Pharos happy to learn that I believe that the University expects to have made a substantial loss on the acquisition, but would still support it on academic grounds.
A happy accident-I meant "owned", of course, but "pwned" will do just fine.
Pawned would have been closer to the mark considering the deficit ;)
I understand that the UK Islands Provincial State Government in the Union of European Socialist Republics, (UESR), has appointed one Sir Humphery Appleby to preside over a committee looking into this serious issue, to ensure that democracy is served to the full & that no foregone conclusions will be made! If you believe that kind of bull.
Barry Woods
"Sell the Sizzle"
I.e. not the steak, which is probably off and full of maggots. Nice to know that the Department for Environment regards such people as worthy bedfellows.
Zed
"paranoid anti-education rants"
So, are you disagreeing with the statistic about illiteracy, or approving of it?
'Entirety' has two e's, BTW.
The rise of the faux businessman in academia has given rise to all these issues on IPR. In years gone by scientists collected their data and if they used it provided it for others to verify/disprove their conclusions. But a few things to note are:
1. Even if you have paid for the collection of the data the IPR doesn't automatically revert to the payer.
2. IPR is usually held for financial gain, it is not usual to hold IPR just for the sake of it, in this instance the academic community seem to be claiming to hold IPR rights so they can withold the data indefinitely if they so chose. Very strange.
3. It would clearly be unfair to expect someone who has put twenty five years into collecting a data set to part with that information if they still had use for it themselves. Clearly the exception would be if they had used the data in a published paper coming to conclusions that no one could check without the data.
So as a rule of thumb once used in a published paper the data and the methods that obtained the data and any subsequent adjustments should move into the public domain. If data is collected at public expense and not used for, say, a decade, the IPR should revert to the department that paid for the data. Simple enough, but that department would have to take over responsibility for the archiving and change control of the said data. So not so simple. The alternative is to pay the university for the archiving and upkeep of the data, but make them put the data on a server available for other scientists.
The FOIA issue is a clear red-herring, and applies only to the climate science community, and then only because they are secretive and unco-operative. Between January 2005 and December 2009 the poor beleaguered scientist at the CRU received SIX, yes SIX, FOIA requests. In 2009 they received 97 requests, 59 from the ill-conceived, but understandable, attempt by ClimateAudit to get their original data, 15 miscellaneous before Climategate and the rest after Climategate.
Their defenders latched on to the overstretched scientists desperately trying to keep up with spurious FOIAs meme. They actually spent most of their energy trying to avoid making their data and methods public. For good reason.
@ZDB: "@stan:- They keep us from learning to read, if they could.
Considering that some 20% of 16 year-old school-leavers are functionally illiterate and almost completely innumerate it looks like "they" have made a damned-good start on the project!
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:09 AM | Pogo
And once again, I am presented with evidence that deniers believe that the entirity of functional society, is somehow conspiring in an impossibly well-organised campaign against them."
You don't really think that do you? You're just trying to wind people up aren't you? I don't think Pogo made up the number that 20% of the kids weren't literate at the age of 16, nor did he imply to those with their irony buttons in the "on" state that there was a grand conspiracy. So I'm reckoning you've deliberately misinterpreted him to make your point. Bad show.
Another thing ZBD, you don't really read the Daily Mail do you? Come on now you're George Monbiot trying to throw us off the scent and I claim my £5! How did I know this? Well you assiduously avoid the science but stick to the taunts. George to a "T".
Re Anonym
Possibly. s.22 provides an exemption for
which is rather open ended given there's no time limit on it. As I understand it, this would allow an academic to protect data/research pre-publication, post-publication it becomes FOI'able. Potential downside is it could allow academic to sit on data and not share it. s.39 also covers overlaps between FOI and EIR, and for some relevant information, EIR may be more appropriate.
You wrote: "If I discern things correctly, there are moves afoot to start reining back on the scope of the Act."
Right at the end of the hearing, Lord Oxburgh said that the FOIA needs to be re-thought because he found it incredible that 'anyone, not even from this country, and without good cause' could ask for information on work in progress. He hoped the HoCSC would look at this - and the chairman said they'll be meeting with the HoL committee in October to talk about that.
Your discernment is spot on, Bish!
Interesting counter proposal to new attempts to hide behind FOI-
http://openwetware.org/wiki/Labs
Part of the Open Notebook Science project. Given the public funding for climate science, the public importance and previous expressed desires to be more open, what could be better than CRU adopting a protocol like this? They'd no longer be troubled by FOI or EIR because it'd be online. But then that's what FOI and EIR was meant to encourage anyway.
O/T
i made a snide comment about ZBD not willing to engage with commenters here on an earlier thread (knee jerk reaction).
but on second thoughts & your commentators response, i agree with hearing both sides of the debate, we need that, so take back the comment & hope he/she adds useful input in future discussions.
on this thread 'geronimo' has it right in my opinion.
Bishop, could you help me and others out regarding FOI's.
When you asked for information from the C.R.U is it the university FOI official that you initially approach or the scientist involved?
Pete
I use whatdotheyknow.com. They sort out the details for you.
Pete.. If they name an FOI officer, copy both them and the person you want the information from.
Found some more background to FOI though, firstly from Acton-
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/FOIopinion
Or absorb less time and resource if there's a culture of openness and honesty as opposed to the secrecy and paranoia demonstrated by the CRU emails. The FOI requests leading to Climategate weren't for anything special, just a list of stations used and then which data CRU can't publish. If either of those had been on CRU's website, the situation wouldn't have escalated.
Or even Jones' handkerchief. Why should he give people his data if all they want to do is find mistakes with it? He'd rather delete data than reveal it.
Now who's being paranoid? All we sceptics want is for climate scientists to show their working. For that, we get labelled as being 'anti-science'. Climate scientists may already be regretting the impoverishment of the archives given CRU and other scientists seem to lose data with monotonous regularity, and that's only been discovered via FOI and EIR requests.
Also more generally on FOI, some of the flurry of activity may be related to this-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/foi_ministerial_veto/
Which looks to be an enhanced FOI, rather than the restricted FOI Acton and Oxburgh would seem to prefer.
To address some of the responses to my previous comment, made half in jest, that they would keep us from reading if they could --
The church once worked very hard to keep the bible from being available, and then, only in Latin because the ignorance of the masses helped the church maintain power and authority. Slaveholders once made it a crime to teach slaves to read. The point was simply that there is always a temptation for those in authority to keep the masses ignorant. ESPECIALLY when they feel that their authority is under attack. See alarmist authorities today.
The most common argument from alarmists is the fallacy of arguing from authority. It's everywhere. Accordingly, we should not be surprised that FOIA is opposed by alarmist authority figures. It is simply an extension of Jones' -- why should I share my data when you want to find something wrong with it? They don't want to be accountable. So denying their opponents the tools to insure accountability is an obvious goal.
No one argues that is an overt conspiracy of the alarmist science establishment to keep children illiterate (ignorant of the realities of climate science, perhaps, but not literally illiterate). However, one can certainly argue that the left wing political allies of the alarmists in the USA are quite willing to keep poor kids trapped in dysfunctional schools in order to placate the teachers' unions. Sacrificing the general welfare to reward selfish special interests is the essence of left-wing governments throughout history. [one can argue that such behavior exists in govts run by opponents of the left, but at least they are supposed to be working to reduce the extent of govt and thus the opportunities for such immoral activity.]
There is certainly a pushback welling up in the USA against authoritarian govt dictating against the will of the people. Cap and trade proposals are part of the focus. Climate science has been a big part of the anti-democratic movement over the last decade. See recent UN plans.