You may have heard of Big Oil, but have you heard of "Big Paper"? We know, it sounds absurd, but check this out.
Right now, there's a proposal in Congress to forbid the government from requiring scientists who receive taxpayer funds for medical research to publish their findings openly on the Internet.
This ban on "open access publishing" (which is currently required) would result in a lot of government-funded research being published exclusively in for-profit journals -- inaccessible to the general public.
Why on earth would anyone propose this? A new report by transparency group MAPLight.org shows that sponsors of this bill -- led by Rep. John Conyers -- received twice as much money from the publishing industry as those on the relevant committee who are not sponsors.
This is exactly the kind of money-for-influence scheme that constantly happens behind our backs and erodes the public's trust in government.
Can you join us in fighting back? The first step is to join Change Congress's "donor strike" today -- pledging to fight the underlying cause of this corruption by not giving a penny more to politicians who don't support reforming our campaign finance system. Click here to take action now.
When you sign, we'll email a phone number where you can call your members of Congress to ask them to oppose H.R. 801 -- the corrupt publishing industry bill. We'll also send John Conyers' number.
(Already, over 7,000 people have joined the donor strike, withholding over $880,000 from politicians unless they support the bipartisan plan for "citizen-funded elections" -- a combination of public financing and Obama-style small dollar donations.)
Who's against the corrupt publishing bill? 33 U.S. Nobel laureates in science, 46 law professors, the American Library Association, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, and open access advocates.
But just telling Congress to oppose this bill is not enough. We need to reform the system that allows the special interests to buy results from our Congress over and over again.
Can you join our donor strike today-and then call Congress? Just click here to take action.
Thanks for helping to Change Congress.
What are you talking about? There is no "ban."
It just gives the researches choice
All published research will still be available for public viewing...in medical journals. Go to the library if you are interested in them.
"received twice as much money from the publishing industry as those on the relevant committee who are not sponsors. "
What's the point being made here and why is there no context?
The "publishing industry" gives more money to congress then these other people do anyway don't they? And not just more money to Conyers, but also to people who voted the other way right?
My questions is where do the researchers themselves stand in the issue. I'd bet they are against the internet requirement because it just results in more busywork whereas anyone interested in the technical aspects of the research will have the science journals anyway.
In terms of the amount of work on behalf of researchers to post the findings of their publicly finded research, they can easily submit the final version on their professional websites (many academics have this, and institutional IT departments can handle the task), link to a version made available by a publisher, publish in an open source STM publication (universities like MIT have pioneered this), etc. It's little to no effort, since they themselves would simply make the work available. the technical aspects of making this available is handled by another party.
BTW, jenba (below) is absolutely right in that many libraries and information centers have had to cut back on their subscrptions of STM journals, which end to be quite pricey, if they had the budget for these in the first place. Those that do hold the subscriptions are typically not publicly accessible.
Rep. Conyers is usually on our side.
But this does not sound good.
It is certainly against the wishes of the voters who were for Obama's philosophy of open government.
Especially when it is an overt act backwards into bushie mentality.
Most of the research is done with tax payer money, it should always be open to the public.
Arrangements like this stifle other discoveries and in turn hasten the death of many Americans.
Same with R&D - medical, pharmaceutical and clinical trials.
The public pays for most of this through university studies then these big corporations donates a few bucks or some old instruments and get the patents.
It's disgusting!
The American People better wake up.
This is a horrendous bill that will limit the access to very necessary vital research and studies that will help in the fight of many long term and chronic diseases and disabilities. If this bill is passed, any money that would be saved for insurance will then go into the coffers of the subscription divisions of publications where these studies are published.
As it is, doctors are too swamped with patients and research papers and grants of their own to do the necessary leg work to keep up with a lot of medical advances. It is the taxpayer's job then to take up the slack and do the research and find these new and up coming treatments that are all but being hidden from the public by the greedy money grubbing politicians.
What incentive is there for anyone to pay hundreds of dollars for a subscription over many years to a publication when, even if they find a new medicaiton or study or research, they can't get into see their doctor for 4-6 months because of the back log that will be caused by Single payer Health Care
Why is there such a myth surrounding this program. It is a GREAT program and we should have
long put it into action. Why don't we outlaw lobbyists and be done with the problems associated with it.
Not all "universal health care" is "single payer" (nor is Obama proposing it, btw).
Even more wrong is your assertion that we should 'outlaw lobbyists.' Are you even vaguely familiar with the First Amendment, you know, the one that protects the rights of citizens to peacebly assemble and petition their government? What exactly do you think lobbyists for the UAW, NRA, Sierra Club, National Right to Life, Human Rights League, and thousands of other groups do? They represent the collective interests of their members to the government, often in a more effective way than individuals can.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www/pnhp.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united_states_national_health_care_act_hr_676.php
Everyone should check it out: this is the reform we need.
This bill would save America more than $350 billion a year (!) in health care costs by eliminating the private health insurance cartel. The savings would be enough to insure the 50 million uninsured.
So great applause and deep gratitude go to Rep. Conyers for sponsoring this essential piece of legislation. This is our year!
*
However, that said, I find no reason why studies funded by taxpayers should not be required to be publicly accessible online. I agree with the authors of this post that Conyers' position on H.R. 801 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:
smacks of corruption. Conyers should withdraw his support for this legislation.