US Research Open Access In Peril

luceth writes "Several years ago, the U.S. National Institutes of Health instituted a policy whereby publications whose research was supported by federal funds were to be made freely accessible a year after publication. The rationale was that the public paid for the research in the first place. This policy is now threatened by legislation introduced by, you guessed it, a Congresswoman who is the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the scientific publishing industry. The full text of the bill, H.R. 3699, is available online."

Comments

dufus decisions

[k6mfw]

Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.

Re:dufus decisions

[causality]

While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts.

Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. Obama is a statist.

Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government, nor does he view it as a deserving object of mistrust. He doesn't want legitimate matters of governance to be handled by the smallest and most local level of government that is able to manage them. He likes centralization for its own sake and accepts the regimentation that comes with it. He subscribes to the belief that people should be commanded and controlled rather than reasoned with, that they should not only tolerate this but also welcome it.

He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.

If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

Like they said on Monty Python's Life of Brian, "blessed are those with a vested interest in the status quo."

Re:dufus decisions

[Grygus]

I might agree with that. The problem would then be that we've dropped the moderation.

Re:dufus decisions

[Sponge Bath]

You've asserted an interesting collection of terrible motives to the president with no supporting evidence. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and now we know yours.

Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[trunicated]

Color me shocked.

This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment. However, since it would be Congress that would need to change those laws, it's never going to happen.

Who watches the watchers, fox guard the henhouse, etc.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[Black Parrot]

This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment.

Thank all the gods that the Supreme Court figured out that campaign contributions don't "necessarily" buy politicians. Otherwise we might be tempted to jump to an uncharitable conclusion, in cases like this.

Re:Congresspeople doing favors for donors

[SETIGuy]

No thanks, registered voters only. Having a pile of unnecessary kids should not get you extra political points.

Why are bribes even legal?

[headkase]

I'm serious, why is it even legal for politicians to accept any kinds of money outside of their salary?! If that one thing was done - illegal to accept any outside money - then I'd optimistically predict that politics wouldn't be the sh*t-hole it is today.

Re:Why are bribes even legal?

[Local ID10T]

Why are bribes even legal?

Because the people accepting the bribes are the people deciding what is and is not legal.

Oh, this should be good....

[Zocalo]

Check out the co-sponsor; it's none other than one Darrell Issa (R-CA). Yup, the same one that is opposed to SOPA and has proposed the alternative OPEN. Not so opposed to abuses of the copyright system, it appears... I now can't help but wonder whether OPEN was merely put forward as a Plan B just in case SOPA flounders in the light of all the negative publicity. Time to check the small print, me thinks.

Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but...

[ironjaw33]

You don't seem to understand the wording of the bill. Federal agencies are barred from mandating open access policies -- in the context of TFA they are talking about funding bodies like the NIH which award grant money to other institutions who perform the research. This leaves the institutions receiving the grant money, usually universities which aren't attached to the federal government, free to do as they please. Lastly, publishers accept copyright waivers all the time, and some schools, like Princeton, mandate that you submit one if the publisher wants to claim copyright. Some Commonwealth countries, like Australia, claim copyright on all publications their universities produce and submit these waivers with each publication.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You listed the Democratic cosponsor, but not the Republican sponsor. So much for exposing affiliations.

Re:Name and party affiliation

[Nerdfest]

Man, your elected representatives really seem to hate your country.