Open Access News

Steve Gibb summarizes some of the public comments and controversy in yesterday's issue of Intellectual Property Watch. Excerpt:

[The] plan to privatise a prestigious open-access environmental science journal is drawing criticism from Democrats in the US Congress and activists who say public funding provides key information in environmental debates. But some environmental science experts say the journal is edited from a left-leaning political perspective and should not be funded by the US government....But the move immediately sparked controversy among leading environmental groups who rely on EHP’s open access to scientific evidence in disputes with the chemical industry over the risks posed by environmental contaminants. The controversy prompted Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and 12 other House Democrats to write to DHHS urging NIEHS not to privatise the journal because of the value of the journal’s public education and outreach benefits both domestically and abroad. The 9 November congressional letter stresses the link between public funding and the benefits of open access. “Its public funding source allows it to be an open access journal...that is essential because the vast majority of published research is available only through increasingly costly journal subscriptions, institutional licence fees, or per-article purchases. This closed system leaves the American public...under-informed about important, timely research results they helped finance.”...However, the proposal is drawing praise from some environmental science experts who say EHP’s news articles and editorial focus lean leftward and that the journal should be privatised. For example, EHP published articles backing strict children’s cancer controls in US Environmental Protection Agency toxics policies. One science policy expert, who requested anonymity, says EHP is a “point of view” journal. But an academic critic of privatisation disagrees, saying “Documenting how chemicals have adverse health effects is not subjective.” Environmental groups like the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and over 38 other groups criticized the privatisation plan, part of over 330 public comments filed on the issue late last month. The congressional letter also praises the journal’s prestige, saying it enhances the reputation of its publisher, NIEHS. “EHP ranks second among one hundred-thirty-two environmental science journals....It is uniquely able to carry out public education efforts and grant free access to some of the most important science of our time, which the private publishing sector would be unlikely to support,” according to the congressmen. The letter also notes that the publication’s open access makes it available globally in ways unlikely to be sustained by the private sector, including to developing countries. “Because EHP is publicly funded, important public health functions are performed that the private sector would be unlikely to support. The NIEHS provides free monthly copies to those in the developing world, where environmental health problems are, in many cases, the most severe.....These programs have high public health value and would be at risk if EHP were privatised.”