[Ecommerce] WP Story: NIH Revises Plan for Quick, Free Access to Study Results

[Manon Ress]

QUOTE:
"NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni denied that the agency had buckled under
industry pressure"
SNIP
"The publishers were crawling all over the place," said Rick Johnson"
END of QUOTE

in:

NIH Revises Plan for Quick, Free Access to Study Results

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A15

An ambitious proposal to make the results of federally funded medical
research available to the public quickly and for free has been scaled
back by the National Institutes of Health under pressure from scientific
publishers, who argued that the plan would eat into their profits and
harm the scientific enterprise they support.

The initial plan, encouraged by Congress and hailed by patient advocacy
groups, called for the results of NIH-funded research to be posted on a
publicly accessible Web site within six months after they are published
in a scientific journal. Most research results now are available only by
subscription to the journal -- at a cost that often reaches into the
thousands of dollars -- or on a pay-per-article basis that can cost $100
or more for two or three articles.

NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni denied that the agency had buckled under
industry pressure.

In the final version of the plan, however, the recommended six-month
deadline for posting results has been stretched to a year. That change
has angered many advocates of public access, who have argued it isn't
fair that taxpayers must either wait or ante up to see the results of
research they have already paid for.

A scheduled announcement of the policy was abruptly canceled last week
by the Department of Health and Human Services, of which NIH is a part.
Two sources within the department, speaking on the condition of
anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the department,
said the announcement was delayed in order to keep it off the federal
agenda until after today's confirmation hearings for Michael Leavitt,
President Bush's nominee to become HHS secretary.

Sensitivities about the relationship between NIH and private industry
are especially high these days. The agency has been pilloried in the
past year by Congress and others for allowing many of its scientists to
collaborate with drug and biotech companies in lucrative deals that
raise conflict-of-interest issues. Several NIH-watchers said one reason
for canceling the rollout of the new plan might have been to avoid
calling attention to what could be perceived as another instance of the
agency failing to stand up to moneyed interests -- in this case
scientific publishers, the largest of which have enjoyed skyrocketing
profit margins of 30 percent or more in recent years.

"There's been so much embarrassment flying around about transparency and
the public interest at NIH, it's just coming to a head," said Bob
Witeck, a spokesman for the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, a coalition of
groups favoring easier access to publicly funded scientific findings.

Several business coalitions -- including the Association of American
Publishers, whose president is Patricia Schroeder, a former
congresswoman from Colorado -- had lobbied strenuously against the
initial proposal, which they said would jeopardize many journals'
existence by undercutting their paid subscriber base.

"The publishers were crawling all over the place," said Rick Johnson,
director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition,
an alliance of academic and research libraries trying to change the
current system. He and others have argued that few scientists or
libraries would cancel their subscriptions just because NIH-funded
content was available free elsewhere, because such research represents
only a fraction of the content of most journals.

Johnson also noted that the revised policy of asking scientists to post
their results within 12 months of publication was a minimal request,
because many journals already make their content freely available on the
Internet after a year. (The policy has focused on getting scientists to
post their results on a centralized, government Web site rather than
trying to force journals to make their pages public, which raises
copyright and other issues.)

NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni denied that the agency had buckled under
industry pressure. Zerhouni said in a telephone interview that there are
so many different kinds of publishers -- including many nonprofit
publishers run by scientific societies, which reinvest their profits in
scientific and educational endeavors -- that it did not make sense to
demand a six-month release deadline for all.

"I could not prove that a six-month deadline would not harm a
significant part of the industry," Zerhouni said. "The new policy
continues to call for release of information as soon as possible after
publication, but it really leaves it in the hands of the scientists to
decide when. What's important is that we're creating a precedent in
which the agency that funds medical research is establishing a public
database containing all its scientific output. I am certain that over
time people will see this as a win-win."

Some advocates for public access agreed that even a voluntary policy
encouraging release within 12 months could result in more access than is
available today, if the NIH makes clear to its grantees that it is
serious about wanting them to participate.

"The next year will tell if it's working. If a lot of people do it, it
won't matter what the language is," said Michael Eisen, co-founder of
the Public Library of Science, which publishes scientific journals
freely accessible to the public. "What's important is for NIH to
convincingly say they're behind it."






--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des  Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727

Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Cresent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 253. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607