Silencing Science Tracker – Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

“The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It tracks government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election….”

CHORUS Signs Agreement With US Department of Defense to Advance Public Access to Research – CHORUS

“CHORUS, a non-profit organization, announced an agreement with the US Department of Defense (DoD) through its Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) as part of the agency’s continued commitment to expand public access to the results of its funded research….”

Coalition supports Equal Access to Congressional Research Service Reports Act | R Street

“As organizations committed to the availability of information about our government and its transparency, we write to express our support for the Equal Access to Congressional Research Service Reports Act of 2016 (S. 2639), introduced last week. We extend our sincere gratitude for your many years of leadership in support of opening access to these valuable, taxpayer-funded reports. We are appreciative of your efforts, and those of Sen. Patrick Leahy, to make a bipartisan push for a more open government at a time when such work is particularly vital to our democracy.”

CapitolHillCoffeeHouse: “Open Access” or Covert Propaganda? by Alan Caruba – Oct 15, 06

“This innocent sounding bill [FRPAA] might better be called ‘The Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006.’

All the government-funded studies, whether having merit or redolent with hidden agendas, would be available to become a platform by which various social agendas would be advanced. 

Nothing truly impedes anyone from access to published research studies; it’s available for those who want to read it.  ‘Open access’, however, is an invitation for more clueless journalism and covert advocacy….

This bill literally forces publishers of medical, scientific and scholarly journals, which invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in their publications, to give away their work. There is something inherently wrong in that.  The Open Access bill is, in this respect, an unconstitutional ‘taking’ of intellectual property by the federal government.

So, what starts out appearing to be a reasonable mandate based on federal funding turns out to be bad news for everyone; from those doing the research to those publishing the research. Ultimately the unskilled consumers of ‘open access’ could also be at risk inasmuch as they are unaware of whether the material they’re reading has any real merit. 

Another way to further debase the process that supports questionable science is to create ‘alternative journals.’ It should come as little surprise that liberal financier George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, is a big fan of ‘open access’ and alternative journals….”

CapitolHillCoffeeHouse: “Open Access” or Covert Propaganda? by Alan Caruba – Oct 15, 06

“This innocent sounding bill [FRPAA] might better be called ‘The Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006.’

All the government-funded studies, whether having merit or redolent with hidden agendas, would be available to become a platform by which various social agendas would be advanced. 

Nothing truly impedes anyone from access to published research studies; it’s available for those who want to read it.  ‘Open access’, however, is an invitation for more clueless journalism and covert advocacy….

This bill literally forces publishers of medical, scientific and scholarly journals, which invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in their publications, to give away their work. There is something inherently wrong in that.  The Open Access bill is, in this respect, an unconstitutional ‘taking’ of intellectual property by the federal government.

So, what starts out appearing to be a reasonable mandate based on federal funding turns out to be bad news for everyone; from those doing the research to those publishing the research. Ultimately the unskilled consumers of ‘open access’ could also be at risk inasmuch as they are unaware of whether the material they’re reading has any real merit. 

Another way to further debase the process that supports questionable science is to create ‘alternative journals.’ It should come as little surprise that liberal financier George Soros, through his Open Society Institute, is a big fan of ‘open access’ and alternative journals….”

Publisher opposition to FRPAA 81 publishers have sent an open letter to Cong…

“81 publishers have sent an open letter to Congress opposing the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)….

The publisher letter also repeats the old nationalist argument: “[FRPAA] would also compel American taxpayers to subsidize the acquisition of important research information by foreign governments and corporations that compete in global markets with the public and private scientific enterprises conducted in the United States.”

Carolyn Maloney used a similar nationalist argument in defense of RWA <http://goo.gl/sh7fX>: “Two-thirds of the access to PubMed central is from non-US users. In effect, current law is giving our overseas scientific competitors in China and elsewhere important information for free. We are already losing scientists due to a reduction in funding for federal research. This policy now sends our value-added research papers overseas at no cost.” 

The AAP first used this argument in 2006 in attacking the first iteration of FRPAA <http://goo.gl/8fHcs>: “Remember — you’re talking about free online access to the world…You are talking about making our competitive research available to foreign governments and corporations.” …”

Publisher opposition to FRPAA 81 publishers have sent an open letter to Cong…

“81 publishers have sent an open letter to Congress opposing the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)….

The publisher letter also repeats the old nationalist argument: “[FRPAA] would also compel American taxpayers to subsidize the acquisition of important research information by foreign governments and corporations that compete in global markets with the public and private scientific enterprises conducted in the United States.”

Carolyn Maloney used a similar nationalist argument in defense of RWA <http://goo.gl/sh7fX>: “Two-thirds of the access to PubMed central is from non-US users. In effect, current law is giving our overseas scientific competitors in China and elsewhere important information for free. We are already losing scientists due to a reduction in funding for federal research. This policy now sends our value-added research papers overseas at no cost.” 

The AAP first used this argument in 2006 in attacking the first iteration of FRPAA <http://goo.gl/8fHcs>: “Remember — you’re talking about free online access to the world…You are talking about making our competitive research available to foreign governments and corporations.” …”

Peter Suber, Are price barriers in the national interest?

“Allan Adler is the vice president for legal and government affairs of the Association of American Publishers.  Scott Jaschik quotes him making the following remarkable statement about FRPAA:

[Adler] rejected the idea that taxpayer financed research should be open to the public, saying that it was in the national interest for it to be restricted to those who could pay subscription fees. “Remember — you’re talking about free online access to the world,” he said. “You are talking about making our competitive research available to foreign governments and corporations.”

Peter Suber, More on applying trade embargoes to scientific editing

“This is one issue on which I see eye to eye with the publishers.  It was a scandal that the Treasury Department ever applied trade embargoes to scientific editing, as if ironing out an awkward sentence or fixing a diction error were analogous to exporting munitions.  The settlement is a major step forward, but the continuing requirement for a government license to edit manuscripts submitted by scientists from “enemy” nations is a serious impediment to the freedom of the press and the dissemination of research.”

Peter Suber, More on applying trade embargoes to scientific editing

“This is one issue on which I see eye to eye with the publishers.  It was a scandal that the Treasury Department ever applied trade embargoes to scientific editing, as if ironing out an awkward sentence or fixing a diction error were analogous to exporting munitions.  The settlement is a major step forward, but the continuing requirement for a government license to edit manuscripts submitted by scientists from “enemy” nations is a serious impediment to the freedom of the press and the dissemination of research.”