CROWDSOURCING, CITIZEN policy SCIENCE, AND THE LAW: series LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING vol 3 FEDERAL AGENCIES By Robert Gellman CROWDSOURCING, CITIZEN SCIENCE, AND THE LAW: LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING FEDERAL AGENCIES Commons Lab Science and Technology Innovation Program Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-3027 Cover Design: Kathy Butterfield, Wilson Center Editors: Elizabeth Tyson and Anne Bowser, Wilson Center Copy Editing: Bridget Harrington Rector, Tall Sister This report may be reproduced in whole, or in part, for educational and non-commercial uses, pursuant to the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-No-Derivs-3.0-Unported License. Gellman, Robert. Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science, and the Law: Legal Issues Affecting Federal Agencies. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2015). Copies are available for download free of charge at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication-series/commons-lab This report is funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and published through the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, DC. The report does not constitute legal advice and the content is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not presented as those of any of the sponsoring organizations or financial supporters of those organizations. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors and editors. 2 The Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP) Analyzes the evolving implications of such emerging technologies as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and geoengineering. STIP’s research goes beyond laboratory science to explore new information and communication technologies, sensor networks, prediction markets, and serious games. The program provides critical yet nonpartisan research for the policymaking community and guides officials in the design of new governance frameworks. It gauges crucial public support for science and weighs the overall risks and benefits of technology for society at large. The Commons Lab of STIP seeks to advance research and independent policy analysis on emerging technologies that facilitate collaborative, science-based and citizen-driven decision making. We focus on novel governance options at the “edges” where the crowd and social media operate—between formal and informal organizations and proprietary and open source models. Commons Lab Staff David Rejeski, Director Anne Bowser, Data Visualization/Researcher Elizabeth Tyson, New Projects Manager/Researcher Aaron Lovell, Writer/Editor Blog: http://CommonsLab.WilsonCenter.org Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/CommonsLab Twitter: http://twitter.com/STIPCommonsLab The Commons Lab of the Science and Technology Innovation Program is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. 3 About the Author Robert Gellman is a privacy and information policy consultant in Washington, DC. A graduate of the Yale Law School, Gellman has worked on information policy issues for more than 35 years. He served for 17 years on the staff of a House of Representatives Subcommittee responsible for privacy, freedom of information, health confidentiality, and other information policy matters. He served as a member of the Department of Health and Human Service's National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (1996-2000), an advisory committee with responsibilities for health information infrastructure matters. He is the author of numerous columns, papers, congressional reports, and scholarly articles on privacy and related issues. Acknowledgements In preparing this report, I received advice and assistance from many federal employees who enthusiastically provided information but who spoke off the record or did not want to be acknowledged. Their candor was especially important. A January 2015 Trans-NIH Workshop to Explore the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Citizen Science provided useful information, as did several webinars sponsored by DigitalGov University. The staff of the Commons Lab at the Wilson Center was also helpful. We gratefully acknowledge Lea Shanley, former Director of the Commons Lab and Melissa Gedney, former Research Assistant in the Commons Lab, who initiated this study and the precursor study that greatly informed this report. Individuals who provided valuable assistance are Stuart Shapiro, Associate Professor and Director, Public Policy Program, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University; Kevin Barrett; Bailey Reichelt (Smith); and Edward S. Robson, Robson & Robson, Conshohocken, PA. 4 Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science, and the Law: Legal Issues Affecting Federal Agencies Policy Series, Volume 3 The purpose of this report is to review legal and regulatory issues that federal agencies face when they engage in citizen science and crowdsourcing activities. This report identifies relevant issues that most federal agencies must consider, reviews the legal standards, suggests ways that agencies can comply with or lawfully evade requirements, and discusses practical approaches that can ease the path for federal citizen science and crowdsourcing projects, including procedural activities, cooperative actions, legislative changes, and regulatory adjustments. 5 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19 I. Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 19 II. Overview of Federal Crowdsourcing Activities .................................................................. 21 III. Other Relevant Reports ....................................................................................................... 25 Paperwork Reduction Act .......................................................................................................... 26 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 26 II. Overview of Information Collection Requests .................................................................... 27 III. What Is an Information Collection Request? ...................................................................... 28 IV. General Requirements ........................................................................................................ 32 A. Burden, Duplication, Utility ............................................................................................. 32 B. Disfavored Practices ......................................................................................................... 33 V. Clearing an Information Collection Request ....................................................................... 33 A. Step 1. Developing and Clearing an Information Collection Request Inside the Agency 35 B. Step 2. Public Notice and Comment – Round One .......................................................... 39 C. Step 3. Evaluate Public Comments .................................................................................. 40 D. Step 4. Public Notice and Comment – Round Two and Submission to OMB ................ 40 E. Step 5. OMB Review ........................................................................................................ 42 VI. Other Features of the PRA Rules ....................................................................................... 43 A. Emergency Processing and Waiver .................................................................................. 43 B. Independent Agency Override.......................................................................................... 43 C. Delegation of Approval Authority ................................................................................... 43 VII. Other OMB PRA Guidance and Advice ........................................................................... 44 A. Social Media Guidance .................................................................................................... 44 B. Generic Clearance and the Fast-Track Process ................................................................ 46 C. Facilitating Scientific Research ........................................................................................ 47 VIII. Strategies for Progress ..................................................................................................... 48 A. Changing the Law; Changing the Rules........................................................................... 48 B. Embrace the Bureaucracy ................................................................................................. 50 C. Seek OMB Assistance ...................................................................................................... 50 D. More Cooperation Among Crowdsourcers ...................................................................... 53 6 Information Quality Act ............................................................................................................. 56 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 56 II.