Open Access News

Manon Anne Ress, Require or Encourage? IGWG text on open access, KEI Policy Blog, November 14, 2007.  Excerpt:

One of the outcomes of the Nov. 5-10, 2007 second session of the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG2) is a provision on access to government funded research.

Where did this provision come from, and how did it it evolve from “requirements” to “strongly encouraging” that “all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts,” and what does it mean?

The open access access issue was not in the original July Secretariat draft Global Strategy document. It appeared for the first time in the so called “Rio Text,” that came out of two meetings (one in Bolivia in August and one in Brazil in September)....

The following was how it was presented in the Rio text:

(2.5) Ensuring access to knowledge and technology relevant to meet public health needs of developing countries
(a) put in place measures that safeguard the public domain.
(b)promote public access to the results of government funded research, through requirements that all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts.
(c)support the creation of open databases and compound libraries, including unrestricted access to drug leads identified through the screening of compound libraries,
(d) encourage developed countries, universities and donors to require that publicly or donor funded medical inventions and know-how be made available through open licensing for use in developing countries on reasonable and affordable nondiscriminatory terms....

However, last week the IGWG negotiators met, and made changes. The good news is that there is still an open access provision, apparently accepted by consensus. But the “requirements” language has been replaced with a watered down “strong encouragement” language in the version of the text distributed Saturday at the end of the meeting (Geneva Nov.5-10, 2007). (See [the Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property], ...November 10 2007).

Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property
Progress to date in Drafting groups A and B...

(2.5) Promoting greater access to knowledge and technology relevant to meet health needs of developing countries. (consensus)

a) promote the creation and development of accessible public health libraries in order to enhance availability and use of relevant publications by universities, institutes and technical centers, especially in developing countries. (consensus)

(b) promote public access to the results of government funded research, by strongly encouraging that all investigators funded by governments submit to an open access database and electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts. (consensus) ... 

Apparently, during last week meeting, there was opposition to the “requirement” language by some European countries.

It looks a lot like the “old and failed” NIH non-mandatory policy that the US Congress is trying to change, and may disappoint open access advocates. However, it also means that there is a global, yes, global agreement that government funded research should be open access, and when the IGWG plan of action is designed, it will be seeking to implement this A2K initiative. We will be following this carefully.

Comment.  Thanks to Manon and KEI for this alert.  I'd like to hear from any readers who might know which national delegations inserted the strong language in the first draft and which wanted to weaken it in the new draft.  I'd welcome other, more specific details on the opposition and the procedure going forward.  If you send me anything, please let me know whether it is confidential or whether I may make it public.

Update. Also see Stevan Harnad's comments.

Update. Also see Katherine Nightingale's story in SciDev.Net for November 19, 2007. She doesn't identify the source of the original strong language or the subsequent weakening, but she does quote some apt comments:

"Strong encouragement does not work: we already know this from the failure of other non-mandatory policies, whether by researchers' funders or researchers' employing institutions," [Stevan] Harnad, professor of Cognitive Science, Electronics and Computer Science at the UK-based University of Southampton, told SciDev.Net.

"The only thing that works is a mandate. The WHO could have helped accelerate open access momentum, but if it does not upgrade again to a mandate recommendation, it will either not help, or it may even reduce momentum," he adds.

"The WHO have immense opportunities to benefit health in the poorest nations and if they put their considerable influence and resources into open access, things would progress far faster," says Barbara Kirsop of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development.

"It is only too clear that if there is just a 'request' to deposit research publications in open access institutional repositories, it won't work as scientists are just interested in the next bit of research and forget all about ways to increase the impact of their work," she adds.

"Fortunately, because establishing open access institutional repositories, for example, is so low-cost, things are moving ahead anyway, particularly in Latin America."

Update (11/27/07). Also see the story by Daniel Griffin at the Information World Review blog.