[OACI Working Group] Mandate for Public Access to NIH-Funded Research

[Jon Ippolito]

Hi Ari,

Thanks for the comment. In my opinion, any system that reduces value to the "utility for the individual scientist" is already flawed. Look at the Nobel awarded a year ago for research on temperature variations in the microwave background radiation:
it went to two guys (one named Smoot!), but 1000 people worked on their satellite. As in a *thousand*.

As someone who worked on a satellite once and works in open software now, I'd like to see the criteria for academic excellence change to reflect the reality of research in a world based increasingly on collaboration.

Two solutions we know work in open software are to 1) publish online and 2) "release early and often." The former is an easier sell to scientists (Arxiv now has half a million e-prints), but the latter would also have clear benefits to the
scientific community. Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem cell data were exposed not by the "peer reviewers" of established journals but by younger researchers who posted critiques online.

Of course, we can still give credit to individuals who work in a collaborative milieu, but I don't think the right way to do this is by artificially hiding research from prying eyes until ready for publication. It's not clear that hoarding data
works in the age of networks anyway, given the recent scandal over Spanish astronomers Googling Michael Brown's data out from under him.

Rather what we need is open systems for tracking re-use and establishing genealogies. The Pool now has a Relationship Mapper in beta that does this for creative efforts online. On the scientific side, Harlan Onsrud and his colleagues at U-Me have
been working on a scheme for watermarking geographic data with a provenance that can be traced back to its original source. Not an easy task, but a really interesting challenge.

Finally, we need to change criteria for promotion and tenure to reflect life in the networked age. The Open Access Citation Index group and Roger Malina of MIT's Leonardo journal have been thinking about this for some time. Roger is poised to
publish the p&t guidelines recently approved by U-Me's New Media Department as an example of collaboration-friendly criteria.

Anyway, bills like the one below will force more scientists to engage these issues--best,

jon

"Ari W. Epstein" <awe at alum.mit.edu> on Friday, October 26, 2007 at 10:09 AM -0500 wrote:
>
>In principle a good idea, not just for its effects on developing treatments 
>but also for its effects on research, since it should make it possible for 
>new knowledge to be spread farther and more quickly. Of course, the devil 
>is in the details: For example, how much of my raw data do I have to 
>disseminate, and how quickly? What level of analysis/processing 
>can/should/must I do before dissemination? How long do I get to try to get 
>results from my own work in developing and conducting an experiment before 
>I have to make it possible for anyone--even people who invested no time or 
>effort in planning and conducting the research--to get a chance to work 
>with the data, potentially scooping me? The last may be the most important, 
>because any system that reduces the utility--to the individual 
>scientist--of planning and performing experiments is likely to reduce the 
>amount of actual research carried out. Not sure how to address that.
>
>a
>
>
>
>At 05:51 AM 10/26/2007, Jon Ippolito wrote:
>>Assuming this bill passes--and it looks like it will--then if the 
>>government funds your health-related research, you have to share the 
>>results of that research with the public. No more cancer cures locked up 
>>in Big Pharma labs until they can figure
>>out a way to patent them.
>>
>>Another step toward the decentralization of scientific knowledge--
>>
>>jon
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:09:54 -0400
>>From: Jennifer McLennan <jennifer -- arl.org>
>>Reply-To: ATA-MEMBERS <ATA-MEMBERS -- arl.org>
>>To: ATA-MEMBERS -- jackdaw.ecs.soton.ac.uk
>>Subject: [ATA-MEMBERS] Mandate for Public Access to NIH-Funded Research Poised
>>      to Become Law
>>
>>Alliance for Taxpayer Access
>>www.taxpayeraccess.org
>>
>>For immediate release
>>October 24, 2007
>>
>>Contact:
>>Jennifer McLennan
>>jennifer [at] arl [dot] org
>>(202) 296-2296 ext. 121
>>
>>MANDATE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO NIH-FUNDED RESEARCH
>>POISED TO BECOME LAW
>>
>>Full U.S. Senate Approves Bill Containing Support for Access To
>>Taxpayer-Funded Research
>>
>>Washington, D.C. ? October 24, 2007 - The U.S. Senate last night approved
>>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 bill will now be reconciled with the House
>>Appropriations Bill, which contains a similar provision, in another step
>>toward support for public access to publicly funded research becoming United
>>States law.
>>
>>?Last night?s Senate action is a milestone victory for public access to
>>taxpayer-funded research,? said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC
>>(the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, a founding
>>member of the ATA). ?This policy sets the stage for researchers, patients,
>>and the general public to benefit in new and important ways from our
>>collective investment in the critical biomedical research conducted by the
>>NIH.?
>>
>>Under a mandatory policy, NIH-funded researchers will be required to deposit
>>copies of eligible manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine?s
>>online database, PubMed Central. Articles will be made publicly available no
>>later than 12 months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
>>
>>The current NIH Public Access Policy, first implemented in 2005, is a
>>voluntary measure and has resulted in a de deposit rate of less than 5% by
>>individual investigators. The advance to a mandatory policy is the result of
>>more than two years of monitoring and evaluation by the NIH, Congress, and
>>the community.
>>
>>?We thank our Senators for taking action on this important issue,? said Pat
>>Furlong, Founding President and CEO of Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy.
>>?This level of access to NIH-funded research will impact the disease process
>>in novel ways, improving the ability of scientists to advance therapies and
>>enabling patients and their advocates to participate more effectively. The
>>advance is timely, much-needed, and ? we anticipate ? an indication of
>>increasingly enhanced access in future.?
>>
>>?American businesses will benefit tremendously from improved access to NIH
>>research,? said William Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president for
>>environment, technology and regulatory affairs. ?The Chamber encourages the
>>free and timely dissemination of scientific knowledge produced by the NIH as
>>it will improve both the public and industry?s ability to become better
>>informed on developments that impact them ? and on opportunities for
>>innovation.? The Chamber is the world?s largest business federation,
>>representing more than three million businesses of every size, sector, and
>>region.
>>
>>?We welcome the NIH policy being made mandatory and thank Congress for
>>backing this important step,? said Gary Ward, Treasurer of the American
>>Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). ?Free and timely public access to
>>scientific literature is necessary to ensure that new discoveries are made
>>as quickly as feasible. It?s the right thing to do, given that taxpayers
>>fund this research.? The ASCB represents 11,000 members and publishes the
>>highly ranked peer-reviewed journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell.
>>
>>Joseph added, ?On behalf of the taxpayers, patients, researchers, students,
>>libraries, universities, and businesses that pressed this bill forward with
>>their support over the past two years, the ATA thanks Congress for throwing
>>its weight behind the success of taxpayer access to taxpayer-funded
>>research.?
>>
>>Negotiators from the House and Senate are expected to meet to reconcile
>>their respective bills this fall. The final, consolidated bill will have to
>>pass the House and the Senate before being delivered to the President at the
>>end of the year.
>>
>>###
>>
>>The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a coalition of patient, academic,
>>research, and publishing organizations that supports open public access to
>>the results of federally funded research. The Alliance was formed in 2004 to
>>urge that peer-reviewed articles stemming from taxpayer-funded research
>>become fully accessible and available online at no extra cost to the
>>American public. Details on the ATA may be found at
>>http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------
>>Jennifer McLennan
>>Director of Communications
>>SPARC
>>(The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)
>>http://www.arl.org/sparc
>>(202) 296-2296 ext 121
>>jennifer -- arl.org
>>
>>
>>Visit the List Archives at:
>>
>>http://mailhost.soros.org/pipermail/oaci-working-group/
>
>