December 07
From OpenAccess
Oh the OA Drama of it All
By Robin Peek
The Open Access (OA) movement has all the makings of a good opera. The drama becomes heightened and looks like it is about to climax to a happy ending; some politician comes around and dampens the mood. Many eyes around the world have been waiting, with expectant breath to see if the U.S. Congress was going to give the OA world what it was hoping for-a mandate for OA for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). After the Appropriations bill came out of the joint House-Senate Committee last spring it seemed like OA may be on its ways to archiving what has been discussed for years-a depository requirement for all NIH funded research.
When it passed the House this summer it seemed that despite repeated opposition from the publishing industry, the bill would easily pass the Senate. Would the Bush administration intervene? Would the Bush administration even know what peer review is? Could OA lay low and get past the White House.
No such luck.
The White House became a surprise player in OA when they issued the White House Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) threatening to veto the bill in its current form. As noted in my September column, the administration opposed S.1710 because it included “irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions” Other appropriation bills have also been under attack, except, of course, for the Defense Department. But while the President also strongly objected to human embryonic stem research, abstinence education, and other similar provisions which the Senate have stripped or rewritten from the bill in order to avert a veto.
However, the Administration Policy also noted that the publishing lobby had managed to reach the White House. Let’s call it a soft objection. Clearly though, not as forceful an objection as the publishing lobby would have liked. The following is a long quote but I think it is important that it be read in its entirety.
“Public Access to Research Information. Provisions in the bill would require that manuscripts based on NIH-funded research be made available to the public within 12 months of publication. The Administration notes that NIH’s current policy requesting the voluntary submission of manuscripts has only been in effect for 2 years, and the Administration believes there is opportunity to work with Congress to study the current policy and consider ways to encourage better participation. The Administration believes that any policy should balance the benefit of public access to taxpayer supported research against the possible impact that grant conditions could have on scientific research publishing, scientific peer review and on the United States’ longstanding leadership in upholding strong standards of protection for intellectual property.”
Unfortunately this quickly resulted in the Senate doing what politicians do best-scramble for a middle ground. “We wanted to show that we are willing to compromise,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat of Iowa, in a floor statement. “We’re willing to try to meet the president halfway.”
Sen. James Inhofe's drafted two amendments to the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill that affect the NIH open access mandate. Amendment 3416 would make provision to maintain the NIH voluntary research public access policy. And Amendment 3417 will modify provisions to maintain the NIH voluntary research public access policy. Amendment #3416 would eliminate the provision altogether. According to Peter Suber, author of the Open Access News, Amendment #3417 is likely to be presented to your Senator as a compromise that “balances” the needs of the public and of publishers. In reality, the current language in the NIH public access provision accomplishes that goal. Passage of either amendment would seriously undermine access to this important public resource, and damage the community’s ability to advance scientific research and discovery.
Two Steps Forward, One Back
Despite whatever happens to the amendments, the probability is that Bush will veto the entire appropriations bill anyway and in doing so, send it back to the Appropriations committee as both the House and the Senate must approve the same Appropriations bill. This will present an interesting question for the proponents of Open Access, if this should happen, might it be better to wait for a better day to bring this issue back to the Congress.
Let’s be frank, the current problem is only in the White House for another 400+ days. The next holder of the office, particularly as universal health seems to be all the rage in the presidential campaign, may well be much more pro-OA. Yes, it has taken a long time to get this far but perhaps another year would be a better than getting tangled up in congressional wording written by politicians who, realistically, are more reactive than pragmatic.
Therefore, as the OA drama continues to unfold, perhaps this is not the year for the fat lady sing. The momentum seems to be moving forward, despite the lack of a mandate. The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) may have shown it does have some clout (it helps to have a former Congresswoman in the stable) but it is not the little steamroller that it was going to be. In some quarters, it may well be said that PRISM backfired.
So if the compromise amendment goes through and survives the next round of adjustments (assuming that there is in fact a veto) it complicates matters but only for a while. If OA is removed entirely from the bill, which is probably the better for OA, it is not a slam-dunk victory for the publishing lobby. Far from it. Too many organizations have committed themselves to achieving OA for the NIH that one year or even two is not going to stop the opera. The fact that OA has made it this far only proves that point. So if the fat lady has to wait and sing for a while longer, so be it. Or perhaps the NIH will finally come to its senses and realizes it does not need the Congress or the White House. Now that would be worth singing about.
