Rep. Conyers wants science to be secret… or you will pay

[girl gone mad]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/06/rep-conyers-wants-science-to-be-secret-or-you-will-pay/">Discover

Rep. Conyers wants science to be secret… or you will pay

There are some things science needs to survive, and to thrive: eager, hardworking scientists; a grasp of reality and a desire to understand it; and an open and clear atmosphere to communicate and discuss results.

That last bit there seems to be having a problem. Communication is key to science; without it you are some nerd tinkering in your basement. With it, the world can learn about your work and build on it.

Recently, government-sponsored agencies like NIH have moved toward open access of scientific findings. That is, the results are published where anyone can see them, and in fact (for the NIH) after 12 months the papers must be publicly accessible. This is, in my opinion (and that of a lot of others, including a pile of Nobel laureates) a good thing. Astronomers, for example, almost always post their papers on Astro-ph, a place where journal-accepted papers can be accessed before they are published.

John Conyers (D-MI) apparently has a problem with this. He is pushing a bill through Congress that will literally ban the open access of these papers, forcing scientists to only publish in journals. This may not sound like a big deal, but journals are very expensive. They can cost a fortune: The Astrophysical Journal costs over $2000/year, and they charge scientists to publish in them! So this bill would force scientists to spend money to publish, and force you to spend money to read them.

Why would Conyers do this? Interestingly, if you look at the bill sponsors, you find that they received twice as much money on average in donations from journal publishers than Congresscritters who don’t sponsor the bill — though to be fair, the total amount is not large. Still, Conyers got 4 times as much.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/06/rep-conyers-wants-science-to-be-secret-or-you-will-pay/">More...

[w4rma]

1. Conyers needs to back down on this legislation. He doesn't understand the situation. (nt)

[Tex-Slim]

8. WHAT?

Back down... and stab those who give him lavish campaign and other contributions in the back? That's not the Conyers I've come to know and love...

[babylonsister]

2. Luckily, science and politics will be separated...

Officials: Presidential Memo to Insulate Science From Politics

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 8, 2009; 7:04 PM


When President Obama lifts restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research Monday, he will also issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence, officials said today.

"The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this memorandum so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals," said Melody Barnes, director of Obama's Domestic Policy Council.

While officials would not go into details, the memorandum will order the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to "assure a number of effective standards and practices that will help our society feel that we have the highest-quality individuals carrying out scientific jobs and that information is shared with the public," said Harold Varmus, who co-chairs Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The decision by President George W. Bush to restrict funding for stem cell research was seen by critics as part of a pattern of allowing political ideology to influence scientific decisions, affecting issues including whether to approve the morning-after pill Plan B for over-the-counter sales and climate change.

"We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration as one manifestation of the failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs," Varmus said. "This is consistent with {Obama's} determination to use sound scientific practice, responsible practice of science and evidence, instead of dogma in developing federal policy."

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8252233&mesg_id=8252233

[girl gone mad]

3. That is good news, but these are two different issues.

To quote the FT,

Rep. Conyers has introduced a bill, misleadingly called the ”Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,” that would eviscerate public access to taxpayer funded research. The bill is so badly drafted that it would also wreak havoc on federal information policy more generally. It is supported by the commercial science publishers, but opposed by a remarkable set of groups -- ranging from the American Research Libraries, to 33 Nobel Prize Winners, to a coalition of patients’ rights organizations. (One of its many negative effects would be effectively to forbid the the US National Institutes of Health from allowing the taxpayers who have paid for medical research actually to read the results for free, hurting not only the progress of science, but informed medical decisions by patients and their families.)

[babylonsister]

4. Maybe the President will trump Conyers. nt

[Angleae]

5. Conyers seems to have a problem with the Constitutuion.

Specifically the 1st amendment and free speech.

[Tex-Slim]

7. That's not it

He's just pandering to those who pay him to vote a certain way... obviously! Those who would stand to lose if free and open communication becomes the rule...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

9. I don't think the OP properly summarizes the bill.

The bill is short, and not jargon-laden. It doesn't force the authors to do anything; it prevents the agencies from forcing the authors to do something. It stops agencies from requiring authors to publish in free, subscriptionless sources. It allows authors to retain copyright--they can publish in subscription journals, they can publish in free journals, they can staple their papers together into edited volumes or monographs.

Here's the legislative summary (and my first time attempting block quotes, so if it goes horribly wrong, overlook the formatting):

2/3/2009--Introduced.
Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - Prohibits any federal agency from imposing any condition, in connection with a funding agreement, that requires the transfer or license to or for a federal agency, or requires the absence or abandonment, of specified exclusive rights of a copyright owner in an extrinsic work.
Prohibits any federal agency from: (1) imposing, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any such prohibition; or (2) asserting any rights in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of copyright rights in an extrinsic work.
Defines "funding agreement" as any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a federal agency for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.
Defines "extrinsic work" as any work, other than a work of the U.S. government, that is related to a funding agreement and is also funded in substantial part by, or results from a meaningful added value contributed by, one or more nonfederal entities that are not a party to the funding agreement.

Here's the bill in its entirety: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:

To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fair Copyright in Research Works Act'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING EXTRINSIC WORKS.

(a) In General- Section 201 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(f) Limitations on the Federal Government-

`(1) LIMITATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AGREEMENTS- No Federal agency may, in connection with a funding agreement--

`(A) impose or cause the imposition of any term or condition that--

`(i) requires the transfer or license to or for a Federal agency of--

`(I) any right provided under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 106 in an extrinsic work; or

`(II) any right provided under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 106 in an extrinsic work, to the extent that, solely for purposes of this subsection, such right involves the availability to the public of that work; or

`(ii) requires the absence or abandonment of any right described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) in an extrinsic work;

`(B) impose or cause the imposition of, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any prohibition under subparagraph (A); or

`(C) assert any rights under this title in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of rights under this title in an extrinsic work.

Any term, condition, or assertion prohibited under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall be given no effect under this title or otherwise.

`(2) CONSTRUCTION-

`(A) CERTAIN OTHER RIGHTS NOT LIMITED- Nothing in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) shall be construed to limit the rights provided to the copyright owner under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 106.

`(B) NO NEW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION CREATED- Nothing in this subsection provides copyright protection to any subject matter that is not protected under section 102.

`(3) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:

`(A) EXTRINSIC WORK- The term `extrinsic work' means any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement and--

`(i) is also funded in substantial part by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party; or

`(ii) represents, reflects, or results from a meaningful added value or process contributed by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party.

`(B) FEDERAL AGENCY- The term `Federal agency' means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.

`(C) FUNDING AGREEMENT- The term `funding agreement' means any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.'.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to any funding agreement that is entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Report to Congressional Committees- Not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall, after consulting with the Comptroller General and with Federal agencies that provide funding under funding agreements and with publishers in the private sector, review and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the Register's views on section 201(f) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, taking into account the development of and access to extrinsic works and materials developed under funding agreements, including the role played by publishers in the private sector and others.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

(1) EXTRINSIC WORK; FEDERAL AGENCY; FUNDING AGREEMENT- The terms `extrinsic work', `Federal agency', and `funding agreement' have the meanings given those terms in section 201(f)(3) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.

(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.