Category Archives: Politics

Peter Suber reports that the Charleston Advisor gave its 2007 Lemon Award to PRISM. I first learned about this from an e-mail:

“The Charleston Advisor (TCA) announced its seventh annual Reader’s Choice Awards for products and services in academic libraries, although “winning” one of these awards isn’t always a good thing. For example, the 2007 Lemon Award went to the Association of American Publishers for PRISM (The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine), the controversial web initiative created to oppose efforts to make publicly-funded research free on the web. “These publishers should not bite the hand that feeds them,” warned the Lemon Award’s tart announcement.”

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted to pass the FY2008 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill (S.1710), including a provision that directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to strengthen its Public Access Policy by requiring rather than requesting participation by researchers.
The vote was a veto-proof 75-19. However, the House version of the bill passed with a smaller majority, so the Presidential veto is still possible (perhaps likely). Still, this a big step in the right direction, and important battle won. Moreover, the real battle over this bill resides in some other parts of it, i.e., the language on the NIH-mandated freeing of research remained intact throughout the process, making it more likely to survive into the future. Read the full press release.
The two drastic amendments by Sen. Inhofe were withdrawn at the last moment. Anyone who has read ‘Republican War On Science’ knows that Senator Inhofe is the leading Global Warming denialist in the Senate and thus, as Andrew Leonard notes, he has two reasons to oppose this bill. How? First, he wants to keep the science away from the public’s eye. This made him a perfect target for lobbying by the dinosaur publishers who have the same goal. Their large contributions to Inhofe are now giving him a second incentive to fight against Open Access.
While the complexity of Washington politics will make the final victory long in waiting (reconciling the House and Senate bills, Bush veto, trying to override it, potential court cases, etc.), the resounding victory in the Senate is a writing on the wall. Open Access is the future. And, as Stevan Harnad notes, and Peter Suber agrees, this is a perfect opportunity for institutions, particularly Universities, to start making all of their research available starting immediatelly. Every University, as part of its publicity pitch, mentions something about being modern and forward-looking. This is the time to show they really mean it.

E-mail I got yesterday – please spread this around ASAP:
——————————–
The Senate is currently considering the FY08 Labor-HHS Bill, which includes a provision (already approved by the House of Representatives and the full Senate Appropriations Committee), that directs the NIH to change its Public Access Policy so that participation is required (rather than requested) for researchers, and ensures free, timely public access to articles resulting from NIH-funded research. On Friday, Senator Inhofe (R-OK), filed two amendments (#3416 and #3417), which call for the language to either be stricken from the bill, or modified in a way that would gravely limit the policy’s effectiveness.
Amendment #3416 would eliminate the provision altogether. Amendment #3417 is likely to be presented to your Senator as a compromise that “balances” the needs of the public and of publishers. In reality, the current language in the NIH public access provision accomplishes that goal. Passage of either amendment would seriously undermine access to this important public resource, and damage the community’s ability to advance scientific research and discovery.
Please contact your Senators TODAY and urge them to vote “NO” on amendments #3416 and #3417. (Contact must be made before close of business on Monday, October 22). A sample email is provided for your use below. Feel free to personalize it, explaining why public access is important to you and your institution. Contact information and a tool to email your Senator are online at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/nih/2007senatecalltoaction.html. No time to write? Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be patched through to your Senate office.
If you have written in support before, or when you do so today, please inform the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. Contact Jennifer McLennan through jennifer@arl.org or by fax at (202) 872-0884.
Thanks for your continued efforts to support public access at the National Institutes of Health.
——————————–
SAMPLE EMAIL
Dear Senator:
On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to OPPOSE proposed Amendments #3416 and #3417 to the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill (S.1710). These amendments would seriously impede public access to taxpayer-funded biomedical research, stifling critical advancements in lifesaving research and scientific discovery. The current bill language was carefully crafted to balance the needs of ALL stakeholders, and to ensure that the American public is able to fully realize our collective investment in science.
To ensure public access to medical research findings, language was included in the in the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill directing the NIH to make a much-needed improvement to its Public Access Policy — requiring that NIH-funded researchers deposit their manuscripts in the National Library of Medicine’s online database to be made publicly available within one year of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This change is supported by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, and a broad coalition of educational institutions, scientific researchers, healthcare practitioners, publishers, patient groups, libraries, and student groups — representing millions of taxpayers seeking to advance medical research.
Amendment #3416 would eliminate this important provision, leaving only a severely weakened, voluntary NIH policy in place. Under the voluntary policy (in place for more than two years) less than 5% of individual researchers have participated — rendering the policy ineffective. The language in Amendment #3417 would place even further restrictions on the policy, ensuring that taxpayers – including doctors and scientists – are unable to take full advantage of this important public resource.
Supporting the current language in the FY08 LHHS Appropriations Bill is the best way to ensure that taxpayers’ investment in NIH-funded research is used as effectively as possible. Taxpayer-funded NIH research belongs to the American public. They have paid for it, and it is for their benefit.
I urge you to join the millions of scientists, researchers, libraries, universities, and patient and consumer advocacy groups in supporting the current language in the FY08 LHHS Appropriations bill and require NIH grantees to deposit in PubMed Central final peer-reviewed manuscripts no later than 12 months following publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Vote NO on Amendments #3416 and #3417.

HOUSE BACKS TAXPAYER-FUNDED RESEARCH ACCESS
Final Appropriations Bill Mandates Free Access to NIH Research Findings
Washington, D.C. – July 20, 2007 – In what advocates hailed as a major advance for scientific communication, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday approved a measure directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide free public online access to agency-funded research findings within 12 months of their publication in a peer-reviewed journal. With broad bipartisan support, the House passed the provision as part of the FY2008 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill.
“The House has affirmed the principle that broad sharing of publicly funded research findings on the Internet is an essential component of our nation’s investment in science,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), and a leader of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA). “This action paves the way for all scientists and citizens to access, use, and benefit from the results of publicly funded biomedical research.”
“We’re pleased by Congress’s recognition of the fundamental rationale for public access – that better-informed patients, clinicians, and researchers will mean better health outcomes,” said Sharon Terry, President of the Genetic Alliance and an ATA activist. “The time has come to sweep away unnecessary barriers to understanding and treating disease. The Genetic Alliance thanks and congratulates the House of Representatives for taking this vital step.”
The current NIH Public Access Policy, implemented in 2005 as a voluntary measure, has resulted in the deposit of less than 5% of eligible research by individual investigators.
In a recent letter to Congress, 26 Nobel Laureates called for enactment of mandatory NIH public access, noting that, “requiring compliance is not a punitive measure, but rather a simple step to ensure that everyone, including scientists themselves, will reap the benefits that public access can provide. We have seen this amply demonstrated in other innovative efforts within the NIH – most notably with the database that contains the outcome of the Human Genome Project.”
“The coalition of support for the NIH policy is extremely broad,” added Joseph. “This critical step was achieved as a result of the vision and collective effort of patient groups, scientists, researchers, publishers, students, and consumers who registered their support.”
A similar measure has been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and will be considered by the full Senate later this summer.

More information will be available shortly on The Alliance for Taxpayer Access website.