RE: Supporters of NIH Policy See Publishers' Gambit as Possible Diversion

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

This is in response to both this posting and the earlier one: 

RE: Health Organizations and Publishers Announce Major Information
Initiative - patientINFORM.org

I agree with some of Rick Johnson's doubts, but not totally.  There are
several aspects to the plan with very different merits.

First, the attempt to increase the amount of accurate information
available on the web is an intrinsically good one.

I am not concerned about its limitations to certain groups initially--it
would be less useful to wait until it covers all. Those with interests not
included should work in a positive way to develop material for their
concerns to be included.  This nation's overall deficiency is not
providing adequate aggregate support, and can much better approached as a
whole, not as the relative merits of research in one disease rather than
another.

Second, some aspects of the wording reminds me of the continuing concern
of some biomedical societies that patients need filters between them and
the research data. People have a remarkable ability to enlarge their
understanding upon matters of life and death. This should be encouraged,
not limited. I find the statement:.

      "Healthcare consumers will be able to access selected journal
       articles as soon as they are published."

very disturbing because of one word: "selected." I can only interpret this
as the associations choosing what material the patients will be allowed to
see. The days of medicine as an esoteric subject are over, and the sooner
the medical societies realize this the easier it will be for them to
regain the confidence of the patients.

Third is the concept that this will substitute for true OA to the entire
published literature. Here, I see the respected medical organizations
participating as having been perhaps unwittingly co-opted by commercial
interests; I think they may have been so aware of the positive
opportunities that they have not been aware of the restricted-access
implications.  Here I find Rick Johnson's comments exactly to the point.

Myself, I am somewhat surprised to see commercial publishers joining in
this; I had thought that their business sense was sufficient to prevent
them from joining those of their non-commercial brethren with small
resources and great fears. I will hope they are joining because of the
positive aspects, not the resistance to full OA.

Perhaps the wisest course for supporters of OA will be to see this a a
useful supplement to OA. I have had some considerable discussions with
some of those signing for their societies.  I know them to be honest
people with a desire to do right-- though perhaps a reluctance to see the
right when it does not match their preconceptions., or arouses their
fears.

I suggest we be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about this
plan, if they unequivocally and immediately position their societies as
supporters of the NIH plan as now exists, urge its immediate adoption, and
offer this as something additional, not as an alternative. -- Indeed they
have bettered the watered-down NIH proposal in one factor at least, where
they improve on what we all recognize as a major compromise in the NIH
proposal--they propose to make at least some of the material to available
without time delays.  Perhaps experience will then help them see the merit
of extending it to all their publications.
 
If the controversy will prove to have led to new information channels, so
much the better-- but the first immediate need, requiring neither research
nor development nor extensive funding, is to free the existing channels
from financial and organizational limitations.

David Goodman, Ph.D. (Molecular Biology), MLS
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of John D'Ignazio
Sent: Thu 12/9/2004 7:07 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Supporters of NIH Policy See Publishers' Gambit as Possible Diversion 
 
For Immediate Release
Thursday, December 9, 2004

For more information, contact:
Contact: Bob Witeck, on behalf of SPARC
bwiteck@witeckcombs.com
202-887-0500 ext. 19
202-997-4055 (mobile)

Supporters of NIH Policy See Publishers' Gambit as Possible Diversion

Thursday, December 9 (Washington, DC) - Supporters of the NIH Enhanced
Public Access Plan today raised questions when learning about the plans of
various publishers and patient groups that publish scientific journals to
make a limited amount of taxpayer-funded content available through the
groups' Internet sites.�

The embryonic consortium�formed by the publishers�is called
"patientINFORM"�and among the participants are commercial giants Elsevier,
Springer and Wiley plus the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, the American Diabetes Association and others.����

Rick Johnson,�the Director�of SPARC and also a member of the�Alliance for
Taxpayer�Access, said, "Every effort to make�credible research available
to the�public is a�step in the right direction.� However, given the
current climate�of positive change,�this one is too little too late.��It
emerges from the publishing interests, not the patients, and will add�only
a select portion of taxpayer-funded research for public consumption.� It
is ironic that this limited experiment has only now emerged after a
majority of public interest and patient advocates already have weighed in
to support the NIH enhanced public access program."

Johnson added, "We applaud all authentic efforts to make medical research
universally and freely available.� The movement toward open access
deserves more allies and more leaders.� However, the purpose, scope and
timing of this development are all questionable at best."

Patient advocate Robert Reinhard, board member of the AIDS Vaccine
Advocacy Coalition, said, "This is a troubling proposal.�It appears to
discriminate among people with different illnesses without justification.
It�would create a group of those who are 'in' and those with other
illnesses who are excluded.� In addition, many patients are scientifically
savvy. Although well prepared lay explanations are always welcome, the
proposal�fails to respect�all patients' direct right to know or their
power to comprehend."

"We worry about any attempts to confuse an overdue outreach effort by
journal publishers with enlightened public policy," Johnson added.�"This
can be a positive move, but it does not begin to approach the public
benefit that comes from having an electronic archive of publicly funded
research available at the National Library of Medicine.� The NIH PubMed
Central archive is and remains the gold standard for how to make trusted,
taxpayer-supported research accessible to more American families.� It is
well past time to settle for half-measures and half-hearted and
regrettably patronizing attempts."

Johnson concluded, "If patientINFORM is public relations masquerading as
good policy, then the public will be the losers. It's clear that the NIH
plan is motivated by the public's interests. I'm less certain about
patientINFORM."

###