Re: Calculating the Cost : an author rejoinder

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I concede nothing. 

1) A congresswoman, Pat Schroeder explored such issues as gender bias in
clinical trials. Whether you believe such bias existed or not, her concern
with the politics of science is evident. AAP's opposition to the NIH plan
in no way discounts her support for keeping politics out of science.
Indeed, it was one of the key points expressed by AAP. (By the way, the
relationship between Elias Zerhouni and Schroeder is hardly as contentious
as news reports inaccurately suggest; I was at a meeting with Dr. Zerhouni
organized by Schroeder, and the tone was remarkably conciliatory and
focused on partnership).

2) "Can one honestly argue that this 5% publication charge payment means
the government is "in charge of the dissemination of critical ideas?"

Yes, one can if the 5% is to be the SOLE source of publication funding, as
effectively advocated by OA extremists like those at PLoS.

I am certainly not arguing, however, that controlling the funding of
research isn't as important, and likely more so. The restrictions on stem
cell research are only one example of that. But the fact that government
already has one way of controlling the flow of scientific research and
information isn't an argument for giving it another one.

3) "If, for some reason, the NIH or other funding body didn't put
publication funds into a grant, it doesn't mean the government is
restraining publication"

Not as long as there is a multiplicity of publishing models, some OA and
some not. But if we accept the radical OA agenda, then virtually all
publishing would be financed by granting institutions, primarily
governmental. In this situation, failure to support authors' fees does
effectively become a form of prior restraint.

Again, it is ironic that librarians, who have so passionately defended
access to information on so many occasions, seem quite willing to accept
and even embrace government intrusion into the the flow of information. We
have maintained an independent press and publishing industry in this
country for a very good reason; because any form of government control of
information is a threat to intellectual freedom. We need to do better than
to weaken that for the half-thought-out promises of open access.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu 1/20/2005 7:17:23 PM >>>

Peter is afraid of government control of scientific information, but he
should take a look at the larger picture of how the U.S.  government
already "controls" much of our scientific research, particularly in
biomedicine. My comments are interspersed below.

At 12:01 AM -0500 1/20/05, Electronic Content Licensing Discussion
wrote:

>In a bracingly insulting way, Phil raises some important issues.
>
>To me, a largely unexamined question is "What is the role of government
>in scholarship and in the dissemination of ideas?" Only Pat Schroeder of
>AAP has discussed this in any depth (not surprisingly, given her
>long-standing concern with the politization of science).

Given Pat Schroeder's and the AAP's role in heavy political lobbying
against the NIH proposal, I can only think that commenting on her
"long-standing concern with the politization of science" was said with
tongue firmly planted in cheek.

>It is rather extraordinary to me that so little of the discussion of OA
>has addressed the increased role of the government in the dissemination
>of ideas through scholarly publishing. Were students of media law and the
>history of journalism involved in this debate (as they should be,
>probably), they would likely instantly point out the danger of putting
>the government in charge of the dissemination of critical ideas. There
>seems to be an assumption among many OA advocates that a producer pays
>model (which is, in many cases, a government pays model, since authors
>fees are paid for with government funds) leads to a freer flow of ideas
>and information.

For the sake of argument, let's say an NIH research grant is $100,000 (a
small grant, most are much larger). This may cover personnel, equipment,
reagents, animals, computers, etc. Let's also say the grant covers an OA
payment of $5,000. Can one honestly argue that this 5% publication charge
payment means the government is "in charge of the dissemination of
critical ideas?" One should actually argue that the 95% (and higher)
funding of the actual research is the government controlling the
dissemination of critical ideas. If the government doesn't fund the
research, it doesn't get done. That's where the control is.

>You only have to look at the conduct of this extremely secretive
>administration to question whether politicians can ever be trusted to
>safeguard scientific dialogue. Are we really content, knowing how funding
>for controversial areas can dry up in the political wind, to empower the
>government to decide whether to allow grantees to use grant funds to
>publish papers in areas like bioweapons, contraception, family planning,
>stem cell research, or many other controversial topics?

I am no fan of this administration or it's secretive ways. However, it is
the actual granting of the research funds that controls scientists. It is
not the tiny amount of dollars put aside for OA publication that controls
scientific advancement. Publication dollars merely allow more people to
read the research results. Frankly, if the government doesn't want people
to read controversial research, they won't fund it, or they will fund it
through the military and keep it secret.

>The US has a strong legal tradition against any sort of prior restraint
>dating back to the 1931 case Near v. Minnesota. We should be very, very
>careful before undermining one of the most important safeguards to free
>expression we have--that tradition against any form a prior restraint,
>which survived even the Pentagon Papers case.

Conflating prior restraint with the granting/not granting of publication
money is a red herring. Prior restraint is the government saying "you
can't publish this." If, for some reason, the NIH or other funding body
didn't put publication funds into a grant, it doesn't mean the government
is restraining publication. It means somebody else will pay for it, if the
researchers get their research accepted.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu