A central issue during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the estimation of the volume of oil released. Scientists and staff at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) were called upon by both BP and the US Coast Guard, which requested help in analyzing the spill, and providing an estimate of the oil released was one of the important tasks they took on. Ultimately, WHOI researchers published an estimate of the spill that placed its total volume at about 4.9 million barrels.

As part of the ongoing lawsuit brought by the US government, BP’s financial liability hinges partially (but crucially) on that number, and the company has been insisting that the true size of the release was smaller. In December, BP subpoenaed the WHOI researchers for the raw data and methods behind their estimate. (WHOI is not a public institution, so the Freedom of Information Act does not apply.) After the researchers complied, BP further demanded any related e-mails, notes, and manuscript drafts—specifically “…any transmission or exchange of any information, whether orally or in writing, including without limitation any conversation or discussion…” applicable to the project. WHOI unsuccessfully challenged those requirements, and was forced to turn over the materials last Friday.

On Sunday, the Boston Globe published an editorial written by two of the researchers involved—Christopher Reddy and Richard Camilli—expressing frustration that there were no legal protections available to them. That was accompanied by a strongly worded press release written by WHOI Directors that states, “A situation has arisen involving scientists at [WHOI] that should concern all those who value the principles of academic freedom and responsibility, and believe these principles to be essential to the integrity of the deliberative scientific process.”

Reddy and Camilli write, “Our experience highlights that virtually all of scientists’ deliberative communications, including e-mails and attached documents, can be subject to legal proceedings without limitation. Incomplete thoughts and half-finished documents attached to e-mails can be taken out of context and impugned by people who have a motive for discrediting the findings. In addition to obscuring true scientific findings, this situation casts a chill over the scientific process.”

Previously, public university and government agency scientists have complained about what they view as abuses of the Freedom of Information Act to harass researchers, especially climate scientists. The experience of climate scientists also reveals just how bad things can be made to look when quotes are deliberately presented out of context.

In this case, concern about infringements on academic freedom extends beyond FOIA requests and areas of research that are targeted by motivated hackers.