[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- To: <email@example.com>, <BKlein@DTIC.MIL>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH?
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:55:03 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
We now see the true light: the NIH is convinced that it is "engaging in R&D primarily for agency needs." This is not the case. The NIH engages in R&D to meet public needs, and would never have been funded otherwise. The grantees do not work to help the NIH; the NIH exists to support the grantees. Even for a narrowly focused contract, the R&D is at least in principle being done ultimately for the public benefit, not the benefit of the sponsoring organization. That's the difference between the public sector and the commercial sector. It sounds like Bonnie has confused the two. The NIH policy on intellectual property must similarly be designed primarily for the public benefit. As far as its internal needs go, throughout the 50-year history of the NIH, those grantees who did not publish did not receive further grants, and this was without PMC. The policy on copyright may conceivably have been needed when the system of federal research support was instituted. Given the technological change in scientific publishing, to continue it now is most certainly a mistake. That's why such matters are dealt with by regulations and not laws--so they can be more readily adapted to meet such developments. Peter has become so used to this practice that he now regards the ownership of the prime intellectual property in his area of science to belong to his own organization. There is no question but that that the NIH has the right to provide its Public Access. The agency has the right to provide much more than that. It has the right and the power --and I would say the obligation-- to require that work it funds be published, and with the copyright remaining in the public domain. I, like other OA advocates, initially supported the NIH because we hoped that the result would be sufficiently close to true OA. I, like some other advocates of OA, deeply regret the initial enthusiasm for a system that in actuality offers the public so little. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Peter Banks Sent: Wed 11/23/2005 3:56 PM To: BKlein@DTIC.MIL; email@example.com Subject: Re: FW: commercial crimes -- & NIH? "The NIH policy is not just about public access. Government agencies are held accountable for and measured by the effectiveness of their products and outputs. They need to know/show what those are, they need to manage them for their own and other government purposes, and they need to preserve them for the future." I think most publishers would agree the NIH has those three legitimate objectives--at least those who attended a meeting Dr. Zerhouni in late 2004 did. We expressed our desire to help NIH meet those objectives, and would do so today. But none of the objectives requires a public archive, which is well beyond what could be construed as a legitimate "government purpose." Yes, the monitoring and preservation of research output are not government intrusion into publishing--but an open archive is. It will certainly be a strange twist when a Republican Congress, supposedly dedicated to free enterprise and the promotion of private industry, decides to declare war on the nonprofit and for-profit publishing industry. (Where's Grover Norquist to expose the madness? For once, he could actually do something useful!) Peter Banks Acting Vice President for Publications/Publisher American Diabetes Association Email: firstname.lastname@example.org >>> BKlein@DTIC.MIL 11/18/05 2:31 PM >>> There is underlying legislation and Congressional oversight that defines and drives federal agency policy, regulations and operations. When engaging in R&D primarily for agency needs, agencies use procurement contracts (15 USC). Grants are used to stimulate and assist for a public purpose, and, to that end, the government requires the results be made public. In general, the government approach to IP developed by contractors or awardees is that the private party retains title to the IP, and is primarily responsible for "commercialization" or other dissemination of the materials. The Government receives a LICENSE to use, reproduce, modify, disclose the information the work for government purposes and authorize others to do so. (Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 948 (1982). Open Access is different than the NIH approach of Public Access. Let me reiterate, the government contractor or grantee retains IP rights and grants the Government a non-exclusive license. These works are NOT in the public domain. It is a leap/non-sequitur to equate the government's contractual rights/license to disseminate the documented results of R&D it funds to government regulation of science or publishing. The NIH policy is not just about public access. Government agencies are held accountable for and measured by the effectiveness of their products and outputs. They need to know/show what those are, they need to manage them for their own and other government purposes, and they need to preserve them for the future. Bonnie Klein