Support Diego Gomez: An Update

“Last Summer, we learnt about the case of Diego Gomez. Diego Gomez, a Colombian graduate student, currently faces up to eight years in prison for doing something thousands of researchers do every day: posting research results online for those who would not otherwise have a way to access them.”

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.”

Xenophobic scientific publishers: open access aids foreign enemies | it is NOT junk

“The American Association of Publishers and the anti-open access DC Principles group have sent letters to both houses of Congress outlining why they oppose the Federal Research Public Access Act, which would make the results of all federally funded research publicly available. They largely trot out the same tired “not all publishers are alike, so don’t impose a single model on all of us” baloney they’ve been using for years.

But one part of the letter really caught my eye:

[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.

Huh? Think about what they’re saying: The US government should not make the results of taxpayer funded research available to all US citizens because it would also be made available to foreigners, which would give them a leg up over American companies in the competitive global marketplace. And how are the publishers going to protect us from this looming threat? By denying these nefarious foreign entities access to the information they are going to use to trounce us? No! The publishers want Congress to insist that these foreigners pay them a small fee to facilitate their fleecing of America….”

HHS Plans to Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week | US Department of Health and Human Services

“Experts say the database of carefully curated medical guidelines is one of a kind, used constantly by medical professionals, and on July 16 will ‘go dark’ due to budget cuts.

The Trump Administration is planning to eliminate a vast trove of medical guidelines that for nearly 20 years has been a critical resource for doctors, researchers and others in the medical community. Maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ], part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the database is known as the National Guideline Clearinghouse [NGC], and it’s scheduled to “go dark,” in the words of an official there, on July 16. Medical guidelines like those compiled by AHRQ aren’t something laypeople spend much time thinking about, but experts like Valerie King, a professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Director of Research at the Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University, said the NGC is perhaps the most important repository of evidence-based research available. “Guideline.gov was our go-to source, and there is nothing else like it in the world,” King said, referring to the URL at which the database is hosted, which the agency says receives about 200,000 visitors per month. “It is a singular resource,” King added. Medical guidelines are best thought of as cheatsheets for the medical field, compiling the latest research in an easy-to use format. When doctors want to know when they should start insulin treatments, or how best to manage an HIV patient in unstable housing — even something as mundane as when to start an older patient on a vitamin D supplement — they look for the relevant guidelines. The documents are published by a myriad of professional and other organizations, and NGC has long been considered among the most comprehensive and reliable repositories in the world. AHRQ said it’s looking for a partner that can carry on the work of NGC, but that effort hasn’t panned out yet. “AHRQ agrees that guidelines play an important role in clinical decision making, but hard decisions had to be made about how to use the resources at our disposal,” said AHRQ spokesperson Alison Hunt in an email. The operating budget for the NGC last year was $1.2 million, Hunt said, and reductions in funding forced the agency’s hand.”