Anti-open access bill is back

Written byElie Dolgin

| 2 min read

A bill aimed at undoing the NIH's mandate to make federally-funded research manuscripts freely available on PubMed Central within a year of publication was re-introduced in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday night (Feb. 3). The legislation claims that the NIH policy breaches existing copyright laws that protect academic publishers. If passed, the bill would stop federal agencies from requiring the transfer of copyright as a stipulation of investigators receiving taxpayer-backed grants. The details of the bill, HR 801, have not yet been made public, but the__ linkurl:Library Journal;http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6634646.html __reports that those who have seen the legislation say it reads along the same lines as last year's version, dubbed the __Fair Copyright in Research Works Act__ (HR 6845). That bill, which was championed by linkurl:John Conyers;http://conyers.house.gov/ (D-Mich), the chairman of the linkurl:US House Committee on the Judiciary;http://judiciary.house.gov/ and an avowed critic of the NIH's public access mandate, was the focus of a linkurl:spirited debate;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55009/ at a House Judiciary Subcommittee last September as supporters in the publishing industry squared off against advocates of open-access. The linkurl:Association of American Publishers;http://www.publishers.org/ welcomed the bill's reintroduction, and said in a linkurl:statement;http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2009_Feb/02_FairCopyright.htm that the legislation "would help keep the Federal Government from undermining copyright protection for journal articles where private-sector publishers have added such significant value." The linkurl:Copyright Alliance,;http://www.copyrightalliance.org/ an advocacy group, also backed the measure. "This bipartisan bill ensures that research works fully funded by the federal government with the intent of public publishing will receive that treatment, but also preserves the rights of other research funders and publishers," said executive director Patrick Ross in a linkurl:statement.;http://www.copyrightalliance.org/news.php?id=59 linkurl:Peter Suber,;http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ an open-access proponent at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, wrote on his linkurl:Open Access News blog;http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html yesterday that he dismisses the bill's premise and the arguments of the two publisher groups as "false and cynical." "If the NIH policy violated copyrights, or permitted the violation of copyrights, publishers wouldn't have to back this bill to amend US copyright law. Instead, they'd be in court where they'd already have a remedy," he wrote. __Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Peter Suber's affiliation.__ The Scientist__ regrets the error.__
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Open access recall?;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55009/
[12th September 2008]*linkurl:Hearing on open access mandate?;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55004/
[5th September 2008]*linkurl:Publishers object to OA mandate;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54088/
[4th January 2008]

Anti-open access bill is back

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Elie Dolgin

Related Research Resources

What Is the Amniotic Fluid Composed of?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

An Automated DNA-to-Data Framework for Production-Scale Sequencing

Exploring Cellular Organization with Spatial Proteomics

Organoid Origins and How to Grow Them

Products

Product News

BRANDTECH Scientific Introduces the Transferpette® pro Micropipette: A New Twist on Comfort and Control

Biotium Launches GlycoLiner™ Cell Surface Glycoprotein Labeling Kits for Rapid and Selective Cell Surface Imaging

Thermo Scientific X and S Series General Purpose Centrifuges

VANTAstar Flexible microplate reader with simplified workflows