[A2k] KEI Letter opposing amendments to weaken open access to NIH funded research

[Manon Ress]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dear Colleagues,
Please feel free to circulate and write you own letter of opposition
(before tomorrow COB).  More info on http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
Manon


************************************************************************
***************************************************************
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?
option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D155&Itemid=3D1

Dear Senator:

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)[1]  opposes proposed Amendments
#3416 and #3417 to the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education Appropriations bill (S.1710).

Both amendments are naked attempts to eliminate public access to
government funded research, in order to protect a handful of publishers.

KEI wrote the Senate on July 23, 2007, supporting the current
provisions in the appropriations bill that require the deposit of
manuscripts in the National Library of Medicine=92s online database to
be made publicly available within one year of publication in a peer-
reviewed journal.[2]  One of the proposed Inhofe amendments (#3416)
would return to the failed voluntary NIH policy now in place, while
the other (#3417) would effectively eliminate the obligation whenever
it was contrary to "the policies of the publishers who have conducted
the peer review and accepted the manuscripts for publication."

Amendments like these are shocking reminders that taxpayers have to
fight for access to the very research for which they have paid for.

As it stands, the open access provisions in the appropriation bill
are not very strong.  The Senate could have provided for public
access with six months of first publication (as  proposed in recent
World Health Organization negotiations over access to knowledge
standards),  or much stronger measures, such mandatory obligations to
publish only in open access journals that provide for immediate access.

Americans pay about $100 per capita to support the NIH, and deserve
policies that promote access.  When everyone has access to the
research, science advances faster, and the expanded dissemination of
new knowledge benefits doctors, patients and others who make more
informed decisions.

KEI joins the growing movement of consumer groups, libraries,
academic researchers and citizens who ask you to vote NO on
Amendments #3416 and #3417.

Sincerely,


Dr. Manon A. Ress

[1]KEI is public interest organization that searches for  better
outcomes, including new solutions, to the management of knowledge
resources. KEI undertakes and publishes research and new ideas,
engages in global public interest advocacy, provides technical advice
to governments, NGOs and firms, enhances transparency of policy
making, monitors actions of key actors, and provides forums for
interested persons to discuss and debate knowledge ecology topics.
KEI also publishes the peer reviewed open journal  Knowledge Ecology
Studies.

[2] http://www.keionline.org/index.php?
option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D102















************************************************************************
***
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@keionline.org,

1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727

24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607

Il vaut mieux remuer une question, sans la d=E9cider, que la d=E9cider,
sans la remuer.
Pens=E9es, essais, maximes et correspondance de J. Joubert  p.249
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=3DGallica&O=3DNUMM-88671
Translation: It is better to debate a question without settling it
than to settle a question without debating it