Congress is not perfect, and I respect Professor Larry Lessig's vigorous effort to change and improve it. Furthermore, as readers of the Huffington Post well know, I am firmly committed to tough oversight and great transparency in government, and I don't mind taking it as well as dishing it out. But Professor Lessig's recent comments on the the scientific publishing issue and my sponsorship of a bill on the subject simply cross the line. I would hope we could debate these matters, including both the substantive policy issue as well as the process/campaign donation subject, without tossing around unjustified allegations. Just as Congress needs some changing, perhaps our discourse does as well.
To hear Professor Lessig tell it, I introduced a bill that is utterly without merit and entirely the product of shady special interest dealing. Without any evidence to support his contention (other than my receipt of what can only be described as modest contributions from publishers), he labels my motivations for introducing this bill as "corrupt," accuses me of "shilling" for "Big Paper," and dismisses the whole thing as nothing more than a "money for influence scheme." This even though one of the very columns cited by Professor Lessig reviews the campaign financing at issue and concludes that "the numbers here are not large" and that "I don't think the numbers in the MAPLight report support Lessig and Eisen's contention that the bill is a 'money-for-influence scheme.'"
Apparently, on the basis of this one piece of legislation he dislikes, Professor Lessig is willing to wave away my forty years of fighting against special interests, including for example my authorship (along with then Senator Barack Obama) of an anti-lobbying law that established reform groups labeled a "landmark" law. I have supported public financing legislation favored by Professor Lessig since it was first proposed.
In fact, I would have responded to Professor Lessig's charge that I am beholden to corporate interests earlier this week, but I was busy fighting the mortgage lending industry to get my bill to provide bankruptcy relief to homeowners through the House of Representatives this week (I was also focused on securing the testimony of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers).
Professor Lessig may or may not know that, last year, the publishing industry supported a version of the "Orphan Works" legislation passed by the Senate that dealt with the use of copyrighted materials whose authors are difficult to locate. This may well be the industry's highest legislative priority within my Committee's jurisdiction. I refused to consent to move that bill through the House, however, because I did not think there had been adequate opportunity for all views to be heard. Would a craven shill for "Big Paper" do such a thing?
I think I have earned a bit more of the benefit of the doubt than Professor Lessig -- whatever his motives -- is willing to muster. And so it should be no great surprise that there is far more to the "open access" story than Professor Lessig's muckracking tale lets on.
First, there is a serious process issue at stake here. My bill would restore longstanding federal copyright policy in this area. It reverses a provision slipped into an appropriations bill in the middle of the night, with no consultation with the Committee which is actually supposed to write the law in this area, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair. Thus, Professor Lessig simply ignores that this so-called "open access" policy was not subject to open hearings, open debate or open amendment in Congress and itself represents the sort of process-compromised special interest provision that he generally rails against. Now the special interests here may be highly worthy, but an openness hawk such as Professor Lessig ought not countenance procedural gimmicks just because they yielded a favored result.
My bill lays down a marker indicating that issues this complex, with important values and convincing arguments on both sides, should not be decided by a few lawmakers without relevant jurisdictional expertise in the dark of night with no meaningful public scrutiny or input. Unlike the measure my bill would repeal, my bill is fully available to the public and has my name attached to it. If it moves through my Committee, which it has not yet, it will be subject to full public hearings - and open to criticism and improvement from all sides.
Second, on the narrow merits of the issue, Professor Lessig and proponents of "open access" make a credible argument that requiring open publishing of government-funded research information furthers scientific inquiry. They speak out for important values and I respect their position.
While this approach appears to further and enhance access to scientific works, opponents argue that, in reality, it reverses a long-standing and highly successful copyright policy for federally-funded work and sets a precedent that will have significant negative consequences for scientific research.
These opponents argue that scientific journals expend their own, non-federal resources to manage the peer review process, where experts review academic publications. This process is critical because it provides the quality check against incorrect, reckless, and fraudulent science and furthers the overall quality and vigor of modern scientific debate. Journal publishers organize and pay for peer review with the proceeds they receive from the sale of subscriptions to their journals, thereby adding considerable value to the original manuscripts of research scientists.
The policy Professor Lessig supports, they argue, would limit publishers' ability to charge for subscriptions since the same articles will soon be publicly available for free. If journals begin closing their doors or curtailing peer review, or foist peer review costs on academic authors (who are already pay from their limited budgets printing costs in some cases), the ultimate harm will be to open inquiry and scientific progress may be severe. And the journals most likely to be affected may be non-profit, scientific society based journals. Once again, a policy change slipped through the appropriations process in the dark of night may enhance open access to information, but it may have unintended consequences that are severe. This only emphasizes the need for proper consideration of these issues in open session.
I acknowledge that these are complex issues and that there are important values, strong arguments, and passionate supporters on both sides. And I look forward to the coming debate. But I hope as the discussion moves forward, we can focus on the merits. No one is well served by ad hominem attacks, baseless smears, or a distorted presentation of the facts.
_____
6:02p to commenter MT: Thanks for catching the typo --JC
Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen: Is John Conyers Shilling for ...
Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen: John Conyers, It's Time to Speak Up
Loading comments… 
It is crucial to the integrity of scientific research that the fruits of publicly-f
Under existing policies scientists remain legally and ethically free to do as much other private research as they wish. Trade secrets remain secret, but basic research paid for by your taxes gets a public vetting...
---
The Planetolog
http://ope
Just yesterday the WSJ (of all places) reported on 21 faked drug studies: http://blo
Access and Transparen
-CI
So, to review:
1) Scientist gets taxpayer funding to do research.
2) Scientist uses tax-payer funding to pay publicatio
3) Journals coordinate the reviewers, who work for free.
4) Journals publish the paper (and wind up owning the copyright to the work) and charge money for access.
How is this defensible
I wrote about this here: http://blo
It sounds like he's taken the publishing industry's talking points at face value with no inquiry into their validity. I really don't think most peer-revie
Also, this argument he makes about special interests is pretty shaky. It's true that Lessig and other "open access" activists are a small group, but they don't represent the interests of a small, esoteric group. They represent the interests of YOU, the taxpayer. Dr. Lessig wants you to have access to the research that YOU paid for. Conyers, on the other hand, seems to have spent too much time in the company of publishers
I've been peer reviewing manuscript
I hope as this issue move through committee you and your colleagues will do everything you can to ensure that the public does not suffer by inhibited access to scientific research and findings. That said will take you at your word that you are not being influenced by corporate monies, for now.
Most of us would have given up long ago.
Hang in there bro ...
The intellectu
I'm sure the fact that they donate huge sums to both political parties has nothing to do with it.
In fact, I would argue that peer review will come much quicker on the internet than on some obsolete traditiona
Bottom line, is that the world is changing. Congress needs to get on board and embrace the benefits of this new world, and stop their protection
Mr. Conyers we are depending on you and others to keep us safe from the rougness of the past, preventing it from ever becoming a future problem. Let the liars lie and the cry babies cry, we the American people have your back and will correct the inaccuraci
Don't throw your pearls before swine. Keep your eye on the ball because the side issues are designed to distract you. Be blessed.
Peace and Love.
Liberate science from congressio
I review perhaps 100 articles per year and I've never been paid a dime. I think, therefore, saying that journals "pay for peer review" is misleading
Journals broadly divide into those run for profit and those run by profession
Most journal editors are aware that the papers whose authors publish them on-line, notwithsta
The government has long prohibited copyright on work it has directly funded. It makes complete sense to me that grant-fund
I understand that you reacted to Lessig's polemic style, but he does have valuable things to say. Please simply ignore the rhetorical devices and have a second thought on the issue.
thanks,
I appreciate Lessig and Eisen's opposition to H.R. 801 (http://tho
The answer was: "We have already establishe
The maximum that a person can donate to a political campaign is $2000. Yet, do we doubt that "play to pay" politics dominates Washington
Unfortunat
Leaving aside the notion of corruption
If that had been the allegation
It would also have framed the problem more productive
Each university makes millions upon millions of dollars per year on patent licensing agreements
Had the research been done by a government agency directly, the work would be required to go into the public domain, and any patentable material would be required to have a SIR -- a Statutory Invention Registrati
A friend of mine, a patent attorney, suggested we write a paper together on "open source something" for a legal journal, as a way to help me get into law school, when I was considerin
And so it goes.
In fact it has led to more corruption in drug vetting and manufactur
The fellow who assembles the whole picture is Chomsky, here: http://gro