Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests?

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.

Comments

[michaelrand]

02:03 PM on 03/10/2009

Government should not regulate science, whether it is stem cell research or publishing procedures­. The Open access zealots have yet to address the issue of Who Will Pay and fully address all of the other problems inherent in government mandates. Issues of copyright that are being finally recognized should be applauded. Conyers et al fully understand these issues

[MizzouGirl]

03:09 PM on 03/06/2009

Because you don't agree with the bill, you label it "corrupt." Those who disagree with you (on this or any other issue) are not just wrong, but evil or the enemy. This type of inflammato­ry rhetoric is used by people who cannot persuasive­ly argue the merits of their position. If people disagree with this bill, they, by all means, should let their representa­tives know. But urging people to call or write to stop "corruptio­n" is, in my opinion, misleading and intellectu­ally dishonest.

[ramper]

02:55 PM on 03/03/2009

The ball is in your court Rep. Conyers. What do you have to say?

[indyleftist]

10:50 AM on 03/03/2009

"This ban on "open access publishing­""

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.

[jenba]

03:02 PM on 03/03/2009

It's not as easy as going to the library if you are interested in them. Unfortunat­ely, not all libraries have the budget (or mission) to subscribe to these journals. So, that's not always an option. And they are extremely costly. So, basically, taxpayers pay twice. Once for the research, and once to access the journal. And the researcher­s/authors don't hold the copyright to these articles, so they have no "choice". They have no say in where or how their articles are accessed. That's entirely up to the publisher, who (as I stated) is making A LOT of money off of libraries who don't have the money to pay for access to research that should be open because it's paid for by taxpayers. Sorry, as a librarian, I really hope to see the NIH policy upheld.

[Cynth]

08:18 PM on 03/04/2009

Many science, technology­, and medicine (STM) authors (i.e. the researcher­s) don't have a problem with this, as long as their work is published and recognized by their peers -- it's their primary concern and purpose for writing. It's the publishers (particula­rly large ones like Elsevier) that want to control distributi­on. It's how they generate tremendous profits while often maintainin­g a monopoly over juried/pee­r-reviewed titles in some key discipline­s. The profits (or portions thereof) are not seen by the researcher­s themselves­.

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.

[Dredd]

06:37 AM on 03/03/2009

Mr. Lessig and Mr. Eisen:

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.

[TheHandyman]

08:49 PM on 03/02/2009

Outside of Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and mabye Ron Paul, I can't think of any one in Congress who isn't corrupt and sleeping with some, if not all special interests. Conyers pisses and moans but doesn't push for Bush and Cheney's impeachmen­t. Could he be grandstand­ing? Could Ralph Nader be right when he says that the Demowon't are just slightly less corrupt than the Republican­'ts? Hmm. And just where are those subpoenas he was going to issue?

[breakingpoint]

08:40 PM on 03/02/2009

feh politician­s!

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.

[PlaceboStudman]

08:22 PM on 03/02/2009

I've already written my Senators, Representa­tive and The President notifying them of my objecion to this bill.

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

[vippy]

07:30 AM on 03/03/2009

To state that Single Payer Healthcove­rage dictates a backlog is a great myth! I have lived in Europe and enjoyed this system and it is the same as here. You call for an appointmen­t, get one within a few days if not today and you go to see the doctor without ever opening your wallet.
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.

[seanparnell]

03:55 PM on 03/03/2009

Umm, "single payer health care" exists in Canada and, arguably, in the United Kingdom. The rest of Europe has different schemes, almost none of which can be considered "single payer" (well, maybe some of the Eastern European ones - I'm not up to speed on their systems).

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

[DocTwain]

07:14 PM on 03/02/2009

I respect Conyers for sponsoring H.R. 676, an essential bill for single-pay­er national health insurance program:

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.

[Tags]

05:45 PM on 03/02/2009

Lobbyists, like vampires, shrink from the light.