Re: commercial crimes -- & NIH?

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

If the NIH did what the Wellcome Trust did, specifically the second point:

(Quoting the Wellcome web site http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ 
doc_WTD002766.html) "the Wellcome Trust: Expects authors of research 
papers to maximise the opportunities to make their results available for 
free and, where possible, to retain their copyright. Will provide 
grantholders with additional funding to cover the costs of page processing 
charges levied by publishers who support the open access model. Requires 
electronic copies of any research papers that have been accepted for 
publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and are supported in whole or in 
part by Wellcome Trust funding, to be deposited into PMC (or UKPMC once 
established)". Would NIH and the Government still be considered to 
"declare war on the nonprofit and for-profit publishing industry."?

Jan Velterop
Springer (the publisher who is happy with open access and with the
Wellcome Trust's policy)

On 23 Nov 2005, at 20:56, Peter Banks wrote:

> "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: pbanks@diabetes.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