Does the Obama Administration
believe in the power of the Internet to maximize the value of public
investments in scientific research? We will soon find out. Each year, the
government spends about $60 billion on basic scientific research. About half of
this money goes to the National Institutes of Health, which has an
Internet-friendly Public Access Policy that requires all grantees to provide a
copy of journal articles and other published results of taxpayer-funded
research to be posted online within one year after publication. This policy has
bipartisan support and has been an unqualified success. So, why not require the
other agencies that fund basic research, like the National Science Foundation,
NASA and the Department of Energy, to do the same?
The White House is in the process of deciding how to answer this
question. Specifically, the Office of Science and Technology Policy asked for
public comment on the issue of open access to science journal articles and
scientific research data arising from all federally-funded research - twice.
The responses to the White House inquiries show that posting scientific
research online benefits multiple audiences: (1) researchers working from home
or from a place where they do not have access to institutional subscriptions;
(2) entrepreneurs who lack the funds to purchase expensive journal
subscriptions; (3) students whose schools cannot afford subscriptions to all
the relevant journals; (4) patients and their families who want to read the
medical research for themselves; and (5) text mining software that can aid all
of the above in interpreting the journal literature to make decisions about new
research paths and to make new discoveries about patterns and associations that
a human reader alone would never see.
The President has the authority to require that researchers who
receive federal grants must agree to provide public access on the Internet to
copies of research articles arising from this federal support. Such a policy is
fully consistent with copyright law because authors of these articles make a
choice to allow their articles to be posted online in exchange for the federal
funding that allows them to do the research and write these articles. The
Administration has delayed in exercising this authority because a group of
journal publishers oppose the principle of taxpayer access to taxpayer-funded
research even when the evidence is clear that the NIH policy does not impact
their subscription revenues.
Frustrated by this delay, three open access allies, Heather
Joseph, John Wilbanks, and Mike Rossner, and I lodged a petition
on the White House's "We the People" website. The petition asks the
Administration to extend the NIH Public Access Policy to all federal agencies
that fund scientific research. If a petition gets 25,000 signatures within 30
days, the Administration will issue an official response. We posted our
petition on Sunday, May 20th, and started a web site, www.access2research.org, to explain
why. Researchers, students, librarians, innovators, patients' advocacy
organizations, and Internet supporters of all kinds have risen up to meet the
challenge, and the petition passed the 25,000 mark in just two weeks on Sunday
(June 3, 2012).
Now that the Administration has to respond at least to the
petition, will it side with the public or with the group of publishers who
actively resist the idea that publicly funded research should be available on
the public Internet?
Michael Carroll is a Professor of Law at American University Washington
College of Law, Heather Joseph is the Executive Director of the Scholarly
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, John Wilbanks is a Senior Fellow
at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and runs the Consent to Research
Project, and Mike Rossner is the Executive Director of the Rockefeller
University Press, which publishes three influential journals in the life
sciences that make their content freely available online six months after
publication.
2 comments:
Out of interest Michael, on the "We will soon find out" front, do we have any idea as to the anticipated time-frame?
Sorry so late to the party, but I just read the article, and the response from the White House. My question is, Does the cut-off of #100 million in research funds seem at least an order of magnitude too high for compliance to make any meaningful difference?
Bob
Post a Comment