Supporters of NIH Policy See Publishers' Gambit as Possible Diversion

["John D'Ignazio" <john@arl.org>]

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."

###