The “climategate” scandal involving the University of East Anglia has sent shockwaves through universities, but many academics still do not fully appreciate the full implications of freedom of information legislation.

The problems at UEA arose when emails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists were stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics. The story broke just before the Copenhagen conference on climate change and appeared to call into question the validity of some of the leading scientists’ claims.

But as well as this, Graham Smith, deputy information commissioner, said the emails between scientists at the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) revealed that freedom of information (FoI) requests were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”.

For universities and their staff, the situation at UEA is one that fills them with both relief and dread. Relief that it is not their research; not their university. Dread that it could be them next. The phrase “FoI request” is enough now to strike fear into the heart of many an academic.

Where FoI legislation applies - as it generally does in education - it is likely that every piece of correspondence, every email written and every document you have produced could be considered as information that may have to be disclosed in response to an FoI request.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU, admitted when he appeared before the House of Commons science and technology committee last week: “I’ve obviously written some very awful emails,” but insists he had never tried to pervert the scientific process.

There are real risks for organisations that do not have their “house in order” for FoI purposes. I held a seminar recently on these risks. There was real shock and disbelief about the implications and it was clear that university staff and academics still do not fully appreciate that everything they do or write could be subject to FoI requests.