RE: NIH as publisher

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Sorry, Joe, but I can't see what is so stunning about NIH's actions.
Funding bodies have been compiling databases of useful information for
researchers for years.  A classic example is Medline and PubMed -
databases of abstracts that enable knowledge discovery.  More recent
examples include gene sequence and protein structure databases.  These
databases do not contain the results from just one funder, but from all,
so making them more useful.

Why is it acceptable for NIH to spend millions of dollars on labs,
researchers, chemicals, etc. in order to further research, but not to
spend money ordering the results of research in such ways that make
further research more profitable?  Why should NIH be allowed to fund a
mass spectrometer but not PubChem?  Both are valuable research tools.

What is stunning to me is the idea that the NIH (or any public funding
body) should limit its actions in supporting research to appease
commercial interests.  If it is a choice between a funding body fulfilling
its mission or maintaining publishing revenues are you suggesting that
commercial considerations should always come first?

You might be interested in the views of a researcher on this.  I'm
appending a note from Rich Roberts (Nobel laureate in Physiology or
Medicine) which was posted to the SPARC Open Access Forum by Peter Suber.

David

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk


[Forwarding from Richard J. Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for
Physiology or Medicine.  --Peter Suber.]
_____
Dear Dr. Namaroff:

I regret that I am going to have to pull out of the ACS-CSIR conference in
India next January. For some time now I have been deeply troubled by the
actions of the ACS and this has finally reached breaking point with the
violent opposition to the PubChem initiative at NCBI.  I find myself no
longer able to support anything that carries the imprimatur of the ACS.

I was greatly troubled when ACS so vehemently opposed the Open Access
initiative.  This led me to resign my membership in the society after more
than 20 years as a member.  The recent legal actions against Google have
also disturbed me very much, but the current opposition to PubChem is
reprehensible and without any redeeming merit.  As an advisor to PubChem I
am aware of what they are trying to do and it is in no way a threat to
anything that ACS is doing. Rather it complements those activities very
nicely and provides for the biological community an important resource
that is not provided by CAS.  Furthermore, PubChem is keen to provide
links to CAS and thereby enhance the usefulness of both resources.

My only interpretation of the recent actions by the ACS Board and
management is that it is no longer trying to be a scientific society
striving towards the goals of its Congressional charter, which is to
represent the best interests of the scientists who form its membership.
Rather it seems to be a commercial enterprise whose principle objective is
to accumulate money. The ACS management team might be well-advised to poll
its members to discover if they are happy about the recent actions taken
in their names.

Aside from the listed recipients of this letter, I am prepared to make to
make it publicly available if requested.  Frankly, the recent actions of
the ACS are a disgrace to its image in the USA and around the world. They
engender such bad feelings as to raise in question the motivations of its
leadership.  I cannot in good faith support any of the activities of a
body that has gone so seriously wrong.

Richard J. Roberts
1993 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine


Dr. Richard J. Roberts
New England Biolabs
32 Tozer Road
Beverly, MA 01984
USA

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 02 June 2005 05:58
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: NIH as publisher

I never thought I would be taking the side of the American Chemical
Society on anything, but this story really stunned me:

http://www.fcw.com/article88988-05-27-05-Web

So now the NIH is becoming a publisher!  It is one thing for the NIH to
stipulate that research it has funded must include a Web-posted article (a
knuckleheaded thing, but it is a funder's prerogative).  But it is another
thing for the NIH to publish material that has nothing to do with NIH
grants.  I don't get it.  Where does it end?  Now we have taxpayer-funded
publishers, why not taxpayer-funded ice cream stores and give Ben &
Jerry's a run for their money.

Chemical Abstracts is arguably the most valuable publishing property in
the world, surpassing even Harry Potter.  I would imagine the ACS will
fight vigorously to protect this asset, as would I, as would just about
anyone.  What a waste of everybody's time.  Oh, NIH, why don't you grow
up?

-- 
Joe Esposito