@andrew adams
‘it’s likely that if the data had been relating to a less controversial area of science then the existence of non-disclosure agreements would have been accepted as sufficient grounds for refusing the request’
Possibly so – if there was some sort of proof that those agreements had actually existed. But in the grown up world, imagination is not a sufficient standard of proof. You need something more concrete to stand up against what the law states you must do.
I may imagine that you have agreed to pay me all your income for the next ten years. But without something more substantial than my self-assertion, you would be quite within your rights to refuse to send me the cash.
This is not a difficult concept. Why is it so hard for academics to grasp? They are keen enough to take the public’s money for their grants and salaries. The quid pro quo of being publicky employed is that they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I seriously worry about their tenuous hold on reality if they really don’t get this point.