Academia

White House Responds (Finally) to Research Access Petition with a Yes

Administration will support making taxpayer-funded academic papers available to everybody a year after publication

|

Eventually …
Access2Research logo

Nine months ago open access advocates took to the White House's "We the People" petition site to ask the government to make taxpayer-funded academic research freely available to the public. They reached threshold for a response (25,000 signatures at the time) in June, but there had been no response, until now.

Now, a little over a month after Aaron Swartz committed suicide rather than face federal imprisonment over charges related to his efforts to download and make accessible academic research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the White House has responded affirmatively. John Holdren, President Barack Obama's assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (imagine what his business card must look like) posted the administraton's position:

The Obama Administration agrees that citizens deserve easy access to the results of research their tax dollars have paid for. As you may know, the Office of Science and Technology Policy has been looking into this issue for some time and has reached out to the public on two occasions for input on the question of how best to achieve this goal of democratizing the results of federally-funded research. Your petition has been important to our discussions of this issue.

The logic behind enhanced public access is plain. We know that scientific research supported by the Federal Government spurs scientific breakthroughs and economic advances when research results are made available to innovators. Policies that mobilize these intellectual assets for re-use through broader access can accelerate scientific breakthroughs, increase innovation, and promote economic growth. That's why the Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that the results of federally-funded scientific research are made available to and useful for the public, industry, and the scientific community.

Moreover, this research was funded by taxpayer dollars. Americans should have easy access to the results of research they help support.

We can argue about whether we actually need the federal government to subsidize the research (particularly given how much the federal government already heavily subsidizes the salaries of college faculties via student financial aid), but that's another issue.

Holdren is going to attempt to implement a policy similar to the approach by the National Institute of Health (NIH). The NIH requires research that they've funded to become publicly accessible for free online after a year of publication. The delay allows the publishing companies time to sell access and recoup the costs they bear in organizing peer review and earn a profit. Holdren's plan is to extend this model to any federal agency that spends more than $100 million a year in research and development.

At the same time as the White House is responding, Congress is considering legislation as well. As Richard Van Noorden noted over at Nature's blog, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives introduced legislation earlier this month to open up access to taxpayer-funded research papers six months after publication. This will be the fourth attempt by Congress members to pass legislation to open access to research.  

I wrote about efforts to open access to academic research last June. Read about it here.

NEXT: LAPD Officers Sold Guns Out of Armory to Civilians, Dealers, Lawsuit Alleges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. a bipartisan group of senators and representatives introduced legislation earlier this month to open up access to taxpayer-funded research papers six months after publication. This will be the fourth attempt by Congress members to pass legislation to open access to research.

    How sad is it that this even needs to be done?

  2. How about we look into prosecutor overcharging and the proliferation of overlapping laws and vaguely worded legislation which allows it?

  3. Why the $100MM per year threshold? Why not $1?

  4. this goal of democratizing the results of federally-funded research

    I’m sorry, what the fuck does this even mean? Oh look, fetishization of the word “democracy”, how unsurprising.

    1. D#MOCRACT IS GOOD! DEMOCACY IS VERY GOOD! YOU CANNOT BE AGAINST DEMOCRATSCY OR YOU ARE AGAINST FEREDOM!WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?

      I fully expect that the American Auschwitz will have Freedom and Democracy on sign over the gate.

    2. this goal of democratizing the results of federally-funded research

      In the sense of letting it loose to the mob, the sentence makes sense. The dirty, unwashed mob.

  5. By law, unless classified, all the results of a federal employee’s work are in the public domain. The question here is whether partially-federally funded research falls under that category. (Or what percentage of fed-dollars triggers that status.)

    I favor open access of anything non-classified* that a single sliver of a penny of mine was spent on. Anything else is private-public cronyism.

    *and if non-sensitive material is classified to get around this rule, I favor drawing and quartering.

    1. Yeah, but we all the know the other work around to this. Yes, it’s public domain, but it’s only stored on servers that are inaccessible to Joe Public because security! So send in a request, we’ll determine how much it’ll cost (per page) to print you a copy and then in 9-12 months you’ll get a shitty third generation fax of the information you asked for, providing your check clears.

      Just because it’s public domain doesn’t mean they have to make it easy for you.

      1. True, but if it’s stuff already being disseminated to libraries, letting them off the leash will drive access burden down to nothing.

        It would take some new law, I think, but the Government Document Repository Library program has been in place for decades.

    2. What if it’s privately funded but federally mandated?
      http://c4sif.org/2013/02/copyr…..gulations/

      The heroic EFF is battling the efforts of the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors (SMACNA) to use copyright law to prevent the online publication of its 1985 standard on air-duct leakage, even though the standard is federally-mandated and “an integral part of model codes, such as the International Energy Conservation Code.” As EFF notes:

      1. Although since the guild is benefiting from the mandate afterward, you can say it’s probably not so privately funded

  6. But how about forbidding gov’t to own patents? The info there is public, and available for free, but why should they be allowed to monopolize its use for technology? It doesn’t serve as an incentive to inventors if the inventor is a gov’t entity. It doesn’t serve a valid economic purpose if the assignee is gov’t either, any more than it would be a good idea for gov’t to speculate in any other investment. I can understand certain patents being secret for reasons of national security, but where that’s not an issue, what’s the justif’n for keeping private enterprise off it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.