Open Access News

Here are some more comments from the press and blogosphere on the re-introduction of the Conyers bill (a.k.a. Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, HR 801), which would overturn the OA policy at the NIH.  Also see our past collections (1, 2, 3, 4).

From the Association of Health Care Journalists:

The Association of Health Care Journalists supports full and timely public access to the results of government-funded research. It believes legislation introduced this month by U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr. and others would constitute a blow to the public's right to access vital scientific data....

The NIH Public Access Policy provides millions of Americans, including health care providers, researchers, patients and their families, and journalists, with critical health data funded by taxpayers. The Conyers bill would choke access to these crucial public resources. AHCJ believes more public access, not less, is required.

From Charles Bailey at DigitalKoans:

According to data from OpenSecrets.org, Reed Elsevier Inc. made contributions to eight House Judiciary Committee members during 2007-2008.

1. John Conyers, Jr., (D) Michigan, 14th, Chair: $4,000
2. Howard Berman, (D) California, 28th: $3,000
3. Howard Coble, (R) North Carolina, 6th: $4,000
4. Darrell Issa, (R) California, 49th: $1,000
5. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D) Texas, 18th: $1,000
6. Jerrold Nadler, (D) New York, 8th: $1,000
7. Lamar Smith, (R) Texas, 21st: $2,000
8. Robert Wexler, (D) Florida, 19th: $2,000 ...

From John Hawks:

I think the existing [NIH] policy is not nearly as open as it should be. The free availability of most NIH-funded research after a year is very important; even scientists at most institutions may not have immediate access to research findings, since journal subscriptions have become so high....

[The bill's sponsors are acting] at the behest of scientific publishers' interests, naturally. Public open access to the products of the public's money is nowhere near as important as Congress' open access to lobbyists' money.

From Nathan Georgette at Open Access Blog:

I...began investigating the money trail on Conyers' campaign contributions...What I came upon sank my heart. According to Open Secrets, Conyers' third single largest campaign contributor in 2008 was the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), whose "Key Bills of the 111th Congress" include HR801. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Money talks, and big money talks that much louder....

But of course this private organization [AIPLA] has the interest of its members closest to its mission; I only had hoped that Conyers would do the same for his constituents....

From the open letter to Rep. Conyers on behalf of NetCoalition.com: 

[The bill] would harm Internet companies and retard innovation and economic recovery....

It is the mission of NetCoalition companies to help their users locate and access the information they need. The NIH public access policy furthers this mission by placing valuable publicly funded medical research in an online location where search engines operated by NetCoalition members can index and link to it. The public access policy thus simultaneously assists the broad dissemination of important healthcare information and promotes the growth ofthe Internet.

These benefits would be multiplied if other federal agencies adopted similar policies. For example, the broad availability ofpublicly funded research concerning energy generation, storage and conservation would accelerate the discovery, development, and adoption of solutions to the global warming and energy dependence crises. Unfortunately, H.R. 801 reverses the NIH policy, and prevents other federal agencies from adopting similar policies.

It appears that H.R. 801 is premised on the notion that the public access policy is inconsistent with copyright law because it requires the involuntary transfer of copyright. This argument threatens to disrupt the fundamental relationship between authors and the entities that pay them for the creation of content. A wide variety of entities, including Internet companies, book and magazine publishers, and marketing departments, pay authors in advance to create works such as articles, novels, and photographs. In exchange for the advance, the author agrees to transfer the copyright to the entity, or to grant the entity a license to use the work.

This system is beneficial to both the author and the entity....

From T. Scott Plutchak at T. Scott:

...[T]he argument isn't about making articles freely available -- [Heather] Joseph [opposing the bill] and [Martin] Frank [supporting the bill] agree on the importance and necessity of doing that.  It's about whether or not we should enable the government to dictate the terms under which this happens.  But this is not the way that SPARC has framed the public debate.

For me, personally, I'm somewhat more inclined to give the government the edge here.  Having started my career at the National Library of Medicine and being steeped in the history of that amazing institution, if I had to choose between relying on NIH/NLM to maintain the permanent archive of research publishing or relying on independent organizations, worthy though they might be, I'd go with NLM.  But that doesn't mean that I must therefore think that the NIH Public Access Policy, as currently implemented, is the best way to do that....