US health agency scales down plans for free, online research results
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The US health agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has modified its plans to make the results of nationally funded research available free of charge after pressure from scientific publishers who claim the policy will damage their profits.
Instead of making the results available on a publicly accessible website within six months of publication in a scientific journal, as originally planned, the agency has extended the deadline for posting results to a year.
Many supporters of public access have been angered by the extension, says a report in the Washington Post (2005;18 Jan:A15). They argue that the public has already paid for the research through taxes and should not have to pay to see the outcome by subscribing to journals or downloading articles through a journal website, which can cost $100 (?4; �77) for two or three items.
The announcement of the policy, which was due to take place last week, was cancelled at the last minute. The delay in launching the plan is thought to be to avoid it clashing with confirmation hearings for Michael Leavitt, President Bush抯 nominee for the post of secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the NIH is a part.
However, other observers believe that the plan may have been delayed to avoid focusing public attention on the fact that the agency was giving in to pressure from companies worried about their profit margins—something the NIH has been accused of doing in recent years.
Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH, denied in the Washington Post that the policy change was due to pressure from publishers. A six month deadline was not appropriate for all publishers, such as those that use their profits to fund scientific and educational initiatives, he argued.
"I could not prove that a six-month deadline would not harm a significant part of the industry," Mr Zerhouni told the Washington Post. "The new policy continues to call for release of information as soon a possible after publication, but it really leaves it in the hands of the scientists to decide when. What抯 important is that we抮e creating a precedent in which the agency that funds medical research is establishing a public database containing all its scientific output. I am certain that over time people will see this as a win-win."(London Zosia Kmietowicz)
Instead of making the results available on a publicly accessible website within six months of publication in a scientific journal, as originally planned, the agency has extended the deadline for posting results to a year.
Many supporters of public access have been angered by the extension, says a report in the Washington Post (2005;18 Jan:A15). They argue that the public has already paid for the research through taxes and should not have to pay to see the outcome by subscribing to journals or downloading articles through a journal website, which can cost $100 (?4; �77) for two or three items.
The announcement of the policy, which was due to take place last week, was cancelled at the last minute. The delay in launching the plan is thought to be to avoid it clashing with confirmation hearings for Michael Leavitt, President Bush抯 nominee for the post of secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the NIH is a part.
However, other observers believe that the plan may have been delayed to avoid focusing public attention on the fact that the agency was giving in to pressure from companies worried about their profit margins—something the NIH has been accused of doing in recent years.
Elias Zerhouni, director of the NIH, denied in the Washington Post that the policy change was due to pressure from publishers. A six month deadline was not appropriate for all publishers, such as those that use their profits to fund scientific and educational initiatives, he argued.
"I could not prove that a six-month deadline would not harm a significant part of the industry," Mr Zerhouni told the Washington Post. "The new policy continues to call for release of information as soon a possible after publication, but it really leaves it in the hands of the scientists to decide when. What抯 important is that we抮e creating a precedent in which the agency that funds medical research is establishing a public database containing all its scientific output. I am certain that over time people will see this as a win-win."(London Zosia Kmietowicz)