> Absent Congress appropriating funds specifically for it, yes.
I disagree with that. FDA was able to produce and analyze the documents in roughly a years time. They scrutinized the data enough that they felt comfortable in approving a novel vaccine. Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place.
> Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public dat
Distinction without a difference in this case.
> citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases.
This is circular reasoning. When owning slaves was legal I could have said "citizens did not pay for law enforcement to catch slave owners". But that wouldn't be the end of the discussion. If a rule or law is wrong, we must fix it, not accept it as the eternal truth.
> Maybe, though for processes that can involve
It is hardly relevant what is involved. People paid for the research, subjected themselves to a vaccine you said is ok. They deserve to know the reasoning behind the conclusions.
I disagree with that. FDA was able to produce and analyze the documents in roughly a years time. They scrutinized the data enough that they felt comfortable in approving a novel vaccine. Surely releasing a USB stick with the documents on it shouldn't take 50x the time to analyze and produce the documents in the first place.
> Citizenship, not taxpaying, is relevant for public dat
Distinction without a difference in this case.
> citizens (through their representatives) didn't choose to pay for the segregation of public and nonpublic information for release on a schedule more expedited than general FOIA releases.
This is circular reasoning. When owning slaves was legal I could have said "citizens did not pay for law enforcement to catch slave owners". But that wouldn't be the end of the discussion. If a rule or law is wrong, we must fix it, not accept it as the eternal truth.
> Maybe, though for processes that can involve
It is hardly relevant what is involved. People paid for the research, subjected themselves to a vaccine you said is ok. They deserve to know the reasoning behind the conclusions.