Funding threshold (RE: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH research)

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

Does the latest legislative proposal specify what level of 
funding would trigger the OA requirement?  Would it only apply in 
situations where the research was 100% funded by the NIH, or 
would it apply to research publications funded by that body at 
something less than 100%?  And if so, what is the threshold 
funding level?

Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Ray English
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: Liblicense L
> Subject: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH research
>
> Opinion
> Editorial
> Accessing NIH research
> Congress should grant taxpayers free access to the medical
> studies they fund
>
> Los Angeles Times
> July 27, 2007
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nih27jul27,0,2419093.story?
>
> Taxpayers pony up $28 billion annually for the National 
> Institutes of Health, the world's largest source of funding for 
> medical research. The payoff, in addition to the occasional 
> spectacular breakthrough, is more than 60,000 published studies 
> each year.
>
> The first beneficiaries of that knowledge aren't doctors or 
> patients.
>
> They are the publishers of the journals that review, print and 
> sell the results to subscribers. Your tax dollars may have 
> financed the clinical trial of a new treatment regime for the 
> rare disease you've contracted, but you'll probably still have 
> to pay to see the results.
>
> Now, some lawmakers are trying to increase the public's access 
> to this research. In a new funding bill for the NIH, the House 
> of Representatives required that the results of the studies the 
> government funds must be made freely available online within 12 
> months of their publication. The requirement builds on a 
> 2-year-old NIH initiative to gather research in a free website 
> called PubMed Central. That initiative was voluntary. But so 
> few researchers complied -- less than 5% in the first year -- 
> that proponents of "open access" to scientific research have 
> lobbied to make it mandatory.
>
> The main opposition has come from publishers, who argue that 
> making research available free could ruin the smaller journals 
> that serve some medical specialties. Libraries may stop 
> subscribing to costly niche journals if they know the material 
> will be available for free within a year. And if those journals 
> die off, researchers will lose the valuable services they 
> supply, such as rounding up experts to review studies before 
> they're published.
>
> While publishers have an important role to play, particularly 
> in judging a study's credibility, that doesn't mean they're 
> entitled to squeeze cash from that study in perpetuity. An open 
> access requirement could force changes in some journals' 
> business models, but a growing number have found ways to 
> succeed while making research available for free -- for 
> example, by charging researchers fees for publication. And the 
> 12-month period of exclusivity enables publishers to continue 
> selling journals to those with the most immediate need to see 
> them.
>
> At the same time, opening up access to NIH-funded studies will 
> increase their impact on researchers around the world. That's 
> very much in the public interest. The more information that's 
> available, the more chance someone will leverage it into 
> another medical breakthrough.
>
> (c) 2007 LA Times
>
> Ray English
> Director of Libraries
> Oberlin College