Donald Kennedy, Bayh-Dole: Almost 25, Science Magazine, March 4, 2005. Mostly about the patent issues raised by the Bayh-Dole Act, but toward the end of the piece, Kennedy touches on some OA issues. Excerpt: 'Scientific journals, including Science and other nonprofit society journals, were invited by Congress to make papers reporting government-sponsored research freely available and to find another way to finance the value added through editing, review, and evaluation. Inconsistency and ambivalence prevail. We want technology transfer, but we resent those who take federally supported work, add some value, and receive a return on their investment. The same NIH that urges nonprofit publishers to give that value away properly declines to make drug manufacturers sell drugs cheaply if they were derived from NIH research.' (Thanks to Michael Rogawski.)
(PS: If these are veiled references to the NIH public-access policy, then they are way off-base. NIH never asked subscription-based journals to stop charging subscriptions or convert to OA. Subscription-based journals are paid for their added value with subscription revenue. The NIH policy tries to repay researchers and taxpayers for their added value. Does Kennedy want to let subscription-based journals control access to research conducted by others, written up by others, funded by taxpayers, and given to journals without charge?)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/16/2005 09:56:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
