Just had this ruling pop up on google: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2018/2258454/fs50696884.pdf I vaguely remember some controversy about someone (Aylward?) failing to properly declare his COI? I can't remember the details though. I think I may have seen someone post a copy of the Aylward COI statement somewhere on social media, in which case these documents may already have been released. Once again I thought that the ruling simplified things into a psych vs bio debate in a way that was unhelpful, but they didn't seem to use that to discredit the request for information. QMUL had been arguing that the information was already in the public domain (as summaries were included in a PACE paper), but this is not the same as the statements themselves. QMUL then seemed to try to argue that they should not have to release personal info, but the ICO was having none of it: I didn't think that the judgement revealed much more info, but others may pick up on something I've missed.