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
It is crucial to the integrity of scientific research that the fruits of publicly-funded research by publicly accessible. Without that requirement any recipient of grant funds could use 100% of that money for private, commercially-intended research... on the public dole. Under HR 801, academic scientists working with major pharmaceutical, genetics, and chemical companies could supplement their private $ with public $, on the same projects, but without the need to publish a single data point.
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.... thus ensuring quality control. HR 801 would do away with all that.
---
The Planetologist Blog (http://planetologist.net)
http://openaccess.eprints.org:80/index.php?/archives/541-guid.html
Just yesterday the WSJ (of all places) reported on 21 faked drug studies: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/11/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies/
Access and Transparency are the core issues here. I'm a writer, but even I diverge from the Authors Guild. More and more (and I am a member, sir) they advocate retrograde positions that ignore where society has moved and what its citizens require.
-CI
So, to review:
1) Scientist gets taxpayer funding to do research.
2) Scientist uses tax-payer funding to pay publication fee to journals.
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? Why does Conyers think Journals are having such a tough time here?
I wrote about this here: http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/03/assume-sincerity-and-principles/
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-reviewers get paid for the review process. So if you cut out the middle-man, there will still be qualified people who are able and willing to review the research. But of course Conyers won't tell you that; he either doesn't know or doesn't want you to know. Either way, the result is just as bad. This isn't as embarrassing as Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" internet speech, but it suffers from the same problem: parroting the talking points of an industry lobbyist.
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 manuscripts in my specialty for a number of scientific journals for the past 8 years and have never received any monetary compensation for my time. Open access is already a reality for scientific research funded by the NIH and published in peer reviewed journals after April 7, 2008 per the NIH Public Access Policy.
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 intellectual "property" laws are suffocating innovation at a time when the world badly needs creative people to have access to knowledge. Unfortunately, the US congress seems to have the "back" of the big corporations and trial lawyers who siphon money off the work of others instead of the rest of us.
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 traditional dead tree version of information dissemination.
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 protectionist policies for obsolete business practices.
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 inaccuracies and hold the culprits feet to the fire.
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 congressional restraint and make scientific discoveries and analysis available to those who can best make use of it - free of charge and free from bureaucratic and corporate meddling.
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. They pay their editorial staff, to be sure, and there is some question as to where that revenue stream will come in future.
Journals broadly divide into those run for profit and those run by professional societies. The for-profit journals have typically relied on extremely high library subscription fees. In the "digital library" era this model no longer works. But manufacturing scarcity is not, in my opinion, a viable way to generate revenues for journals.
Most journal editors are aware that the papers whose authors publish them on-line, notwithstanding their copyright assignment, have higher impact. They're prepared to look the other way but not to change their policy. I don't like a society in which lawbreaking is the norm.
The government has long prohibited copyright on work it has directly funded. It makes complete sense to me that grant-funded work should be subject to the same policy.
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://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:), and I appreciate their inviting Rep. Conyers to post this reply. But the 9k corruption thing is just too implausible.
The answer was: "We have already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."
The maximum that a person can donate to a political campaign is $2000. Yet, do we doubt that "play to pay" politics dominates Washington? It's not just about the one-time political contribution. It's about the promise of what can be done for them in the future.
Unfortunately, Conyers has to raise money himself just to run for office, as does every elected official. This system guarantees that even the most honorable men (like Conyers) have to establish quid pro quos with contributors, especially those who have coughed up the max more than once.
Leaving aside the notion of corruption, there's no question that Conyers is on the wrong side of this issue.
If that had been the allegation, it would have been more credible. It would also have been less gratuitously offensive toward Representative Conyers. (Yes, he's on the wrong side of this issue, but that's no reason to suggest that he's stupid enough to be bought for nine grand.)
It would also have framed the problem more productively. There are a lot of us who think there's no such thing as intellectual property (i.e. inherent rights of authors, composers, etc., that we should recognize and protect), only artificial restrictions set up for the sake of public benefit to get us more art, inventions, etc. by enabling more of the authors and inventors to quit their day jobs. Even if we're only 1% of the population, it wouldn't take much per person per year to match the $9000 over the course of two years from the entire publishing industry that is all the money to Conyers that Lessig cites when he says "this is exactly the kind of money-for-influence scheme that constantly happens behind our backs". Even multiply it by 535 for the entire Congress, and it's still only a couple dollars each for 1% of the population. So why aren't we putting up the money so that politicians who agree with us are usually the ones who get re-elected?
Each university makes millions upon millions of dollars per year on patent licensing agreements, publishing deals and spin-off companies.
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 Registration -- which formally places patentable material into the public domain for the public good.
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 considering such a thing. I suggested that we float the idea that research performed on public monies at universities (and private contractors!) be subject to the same rules to place results in the public domain, and file SIRs, just like research performed by government agencies is. His reply was that he couldn't take that position, because he represented a major research university on just such issues.
And so it goes.
In fact it has led to more corruption in drug vetting and manufacture. See Ms. Angell's additional writing here:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237
The fellow who assembles the whole picture is Chomsky, here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.noam-chomsky/msg/12c9b62ed459d63d