were contacted by Gillberg and asked if they would be prepared to have the data released, all but one family refused. Citing that, and the promise of confidentiality given to the participants as a precondition, Gillberg and the other researchers decided to not turn over the personal data. 267 Swedish doctors signed a letter in support of Gillberg's decision to not hand over the data. After the verdict, the chairman of the Central Ethical Review Board of Sweden, Johan Munch, said that in Swedish legislation, the Principle of Public Access is incompatible with promises of absolute confidentiality, and that the Central Ethical Review Board therefore no longer approves such promises. According to Martin Ingvar of the Karolinska Institute, medical researchers in Sweden will be forced to change the current practice because of the verdict. Ingvar told media that medical studies in Sweden must now adhere to a strict anonymization encoding, even in extensive studies like Gillberg's which contain large amounts of clinical material collected over long periods of time, in spite of the increase in cost and the larger margins of error. Elisabeth Rynning, a professor of medical law at the University of Uppsala, questioned whether the court had been fully aware of the relevant laws. Access to these kinds of records may only be granted for the purpose of research or for the collection of statistics. Elinder had not stated any such purpose in his application, and Kärfve had only argued that the material would be useful for her research, not that it would actually be used in a research project. She was in fact not allowed to use the material in her research project, since that would have required a previous approval by an ethics committee. There was also the problem that Elinder and Kärfve requested the material as private citizens, while at the same time stating that they needed it in their professional capacities. If they had requested the material as representatives of their employers, the court would not have jurisdiction. Finally Rynning questioned how the court could decide that no one would be hurt, as the law requires, if Elinder and Kärfve were given full access to the data. Several participants had testified to the court that they would be deeply offended and hurt if Elinder and Kärfve could read their medical records. The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman also investigated the affair. In the 18-page summary dedicated