ANN ARBOR, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – A Michigan court has ruled that the University of Michigan (U-M) is not required to release video recordings from laboratory mouse experiments, even though the research associated with those experiments was published years ago. The ruling allows the public to access written findings and conclusions, but not the underlying footage itself, after judges determined the videos constitute protected research data and are exempt from disclosure as “confidential intellectual property” under state law.
The unanimous decision, handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals on January 7, sided with the university in a lawsuit brought by animal-rights group Animal Partisan, which wanted to obtain videos that were tied to a 2019 study on the antidepressant-like effects of ketamine in mice.
MORE NEWS: Macomb County’s Late Audit Flags Software, Staffing Woes
Animal Partisan attorney Will Lowrey said the organization argues the videos would reveal graphic evidence of abuse involving mice used in experiments funded by public dollars. “What’s at stake is really that intersection – the public’s right to know what a publicly funded university is doing behind closed doors to animals,” he said adding that if the public saw the videos, it might change their view on these experiments and animal experimentation in general. Lowrey said Animal Partisan is still deciding whether to appeal the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court.
Published paper, unpublished proof.
Animal Partisan argued that once U-M published the study, the underlying materials should be fair game under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. The court disagreed.
While the results were published, the videos themselves, which contain raw data, were not. Under Michigan’s Confidential Research and Investment Act, the law allows public universities to shield “intellectual property” created during research until researchers have a “reasonable opportunity” to publish it properly within the academic world.
The magic words: ‘ongoing research.’
U-M submitted affidavits saying the videos are still actively used for continuing research and could even have future commercial value. According to the court, that was enough. The judges emphasized this isn’t a forever exemption – but it’s also not on a countdown clock. Unlike other disclosure rules with firm deadlines, this one flexes with the nature of the research. In this case, researchers estimated they’d need several more years.
Transparency meets the lab wall.
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) is supposed to favor disclosure. Courts regularly say exemptions should be narrow. But here, the policy balance tipped toward protecting academic research – even at a public university funded by taxpayers. Animal Partisan warned the ruling lets universities decide for themselves how long “reasonable” lasts. The court countered that speculation isn’t evidence, and without proof the timeline was abused, the exemption stands.
Where things stand.
So for now… the public can read about the mice. They just can’t watch what they were up to at U-M. In the end, the ruling draws a clear line: published conclusions are fair game, but the underlying evidence can stay behind the lab door for as long as researchers say it’s still useful. Whether that protects legitimate scientific work or quietly shields uncomfortable scrutiny depends entirely on which side of the transparency debate you think should carry more weight.
