FOIA Case Study 
 

Reporters: Dan Vergano and Steve Sternberg

Publication: USA Today

Story: “Anthrax Slip-ups Raise Fears about Planned Biolabs”

Date of publication: October 13, 2004 

Background

The story, based on an army report obtained through FOIA, highlighted anthrax “slip-ups” at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, MD, raising concerns about planned biolabs. 

After learning about anthrax concerns at Fort Detrick through another newspaper story, Dan Vergano submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Army for information about any investigations resulting from the anthrax contamination at Fort Detrick.   

Why was this information important for the public? 

As the Army report indicates, there were significant concerns that the anthrax contamination at Fort Detrick may have spread to nearby Fredrick, MD.  While the U.S. Army report was completed in May 2002, Mr. Vergano did not receive this report from the Army until August 2004, over two years later. Consequently, the citizens of Fredrick, MD had to wait over two years to learn about the extent of the anthrax contamination at Fort Detrick and possibly in its own community.   

How long did the reporter wait for the requested information?

Mr. Vergano submitted a FOIA request in May 2002. After receiving an initial acknowledgment letter from the Army, Mr. Vergano did not receive any additional information or correspondence from the Army until August 2004, over two years later.   

What information was received?

The Army sent Mr. Vergano a copy of a 361-page U.S. Army report detailing the events of the alarming anthrax contamination at Fort Detrick’s biolab, a renowned biodefense laboratory, in the winter of 2001 and the spring of 2002.  

What was the reported cause of the delay?

According to Vergano, Fort Detrick had a relatively open policy around the time of the 2001 anthrax attacks. But, when a Fort Detrick Public Affairs Officer passed along some information early on, he got “hammered by his bosses” for releasing it. 

How complete was the information?

The U.S. Army report was heavily and inconsistently redacted. For example, on one page, names would be redacted and then on the next page, the same names would be there. Also, some of the material redacted in the report was already in the public domain.   

What has been your general experience with FOIA?

Steve Sternberg –

    “I have used FOIA requests for years, and it is getting harder and harder to get useful information.  At first, I found agencies to be largely responsive, if slow; but now what information I am getting is largely non-responsive … FOIA is a tool for taxpayers, not just a tool for reporters seeking sexy stories.” 

Dan Vergano –

    “I am much more reluctant to use FOIA, especially because – in the past 5 years – a clear message has gone out that complying with FOIA is not part of a public servant’s duties. Often times, when I finally do receive the information I requested through FOIA, the story is old.” 

    “There is one place that responds quickly to FOIA and that is The Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services.” 

    “Reporters don’t generally complain in their articles about significant FOIA delays because it is so much like inside baseball.  We don’t what to be seen as the whining press.” 

How many FOIA requests do you make in a year, and how often do you receive a “receipt of the request” letter from the agency?

Steve Sternberg –

    “I make a lot fewer FOIA requests because the yield is diminishing.  I used to make several requests a year, this year I haven't made any.  Two years is the longest delay I recollect of an agency response to my FOIA request.  When I do make a FOIA request, I receive a ‘receipt of request’ letter from an agency 100 percent of the time.” 

Dan Vergano –

    “The federal government provides me with a ‘receipt of request’ letter a 100 percent of the time. I have waited three years for stuff from the FDA that they should have sent quicker.  For example, I made a simple request for “conflict of interest” reports of advisory meeting panel members.  These routine reports are supposed to be made available promptly after a FOIA request.  I made a FOIA request in the summer 2001 for 6 committee reports, and I did not receive these routine documents until summer 2004. When the documents arrived, even the person’s name who signed off on these routine documents was redacted in some cases, and other parts were so heavily blacked out as to defeat any public understanding of what conflicts they described.” 

Link to the story

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-13-anthrax-labs_x.htm