September 6, 2004
I'M PAYING FOR THAT MICROSCOPE:
NIH Proposes Free Access For Public to Research Data (Rick Weiss, September 6, 2004, Washington Post)
The National Institutes of Health has proposed a major policy change that would require all scientists who receive funding from the agency to make the results of their research available to the public for free.The proposal, posted on the agency's Web site late Friday and subject to a 60-day public comment period, would mark a significant departure from current practice, in which the scientific journals that publish those results retain control over that information. Subscriptions to those journals can run into the thousands of dollars. Nonsubscribers wishing to get individual articles must typically pay about $30 each -- fees that can quickly add up for someone trying to learn about a newly diagnosed disease in the family.
Although patient advocacy groups and other organizations have been lobbying hard for the proposed shift, the scientific publishing industry and related interests are crying foul. The move could drive some journals out of business, they say, and bankrupt some scientific societies that are dependent on journal profits to fulfill their research and education missions.
Whatever the outcome, both sides agree change is inevitable, given society's rising expectations of easy access to information from the Internet and the enormous interest in health -- a topic that NIH officials say accounts for about 40 percent of all Internet queries.
"The status quo is not an option," NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni said last week at a meeting on the agency's Bethesda campus.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2004 7:46 PM
This has taken way too long.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 6, 2004 8:45 PMThis ain't goinna go over well, but it needs to be extended to the whole Federal gov't.
Maybe things have changed, but it used to be that the National Park Service (NPS) had an employee policy that data and observations from "ongoing research" were not available to the public without the researcher's permission until the project was completed and the results published. Some of those projects had been ongoing for decades, with no sign they'd be finished any time soon. The best part was that the NPS regularly got to use that research to support its management proposals, but opponents wouldn't get the same consideration. So much for peer review.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2004 9:30 PMI've never understood why professional journals couldn't work off the web, allowing people to view articles for a nominal fee.
None of this information has any national security reason to be classified so it should be freely available.
Posted by: Bart at September 6, 2004 11:09 PM