RE: US Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006

["Klein, Bonnie CIV DTIC O" <BKlein@DTIC.MIL>]

I believe the term "Public" is used in the bill in its broadest 
sense. This is not a flaw in its language.  The "Public" includes 
researchers, academics, corporations, small businesses and, yes, 
anyone who can access information online.  The whole point is to 
make federally funded information available to all citizens, not 
just those who have an affiliation with an institution that can 
afford subscriptions.

It is arrogant and self-serving to think that only a scientist 
would have an interest and the intelligence to exploit reported 
findings. There is anecdotal evidence of average citizens 
reading, understanding and fostering new avenues of inquiry based 
on their study of the research literature.  One such individual 
is Sharon Terry, founder of the Genetic Alliance 
http://www.geneticalliance.org/ws_display.asp?filter=about_who_we_are_st 
aff_sterry.  Her personal story of her struggle to gain access to 
the research about her children's disease is an example of a 
member of the "Public" who persevered and gained the expertise to 
push the boundaries of science.

The "Public" also includes other sectors, including support to 
USG initiatives such as the Small Business Innovation Research 
Program. http://www.sba.gov/sbir/ "SBIR targets the 
entrepreneurial sector because that is where most innovation and 
innovators thrive. However, the risk and expense of conducting 
serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of many small 
businesses... A major objective of the U.S. Small Business 
Innovation Research program is to produce new high technology 
products and services from federal research and development. In 
the early years of the program, it was believed that very little 
federal R & D would result in spin-off commercialized products 
and services. The program, however, has produced a stream of 
innovations far exceeding early expectations. It is now estimated 
based on a continuing study of commercialization, that over 39% 
of Phase II projects will result in a commercialized product or 
service. These innovations cover the entire high technology 
spectrum."

Finally take a look at "Scientific and Technical Information: a 
Commodity or a Public Good?" By Harold M. Schoolman, U. S. 
National Library of Medicine Published in the ICSTI Forum, 
Quarterly Newsletter of the International Council for Scientific 
and Technical Information, No30, April 1999 
http://www.icsti.org/forum/30/index.html#schoolman . We've had 
this discussion before.

Bonnie Klein

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:09 PM
To: AmSci Forum
Subject: Re: US Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006

                  ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **

As presently drafted, the wording of the the timely and extremely
welcome US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)

      http://cornyn.senate.gov/doc_archive/05-02-2006_COE06461_xml.pdf

stands to create needless problems for itself that could even
make it fail under the already-gathering opposition from the
publisher lobby:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/business/media/08journal.html?_r=1&adx
nnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1147107814-LFLCRUGWHIqcRqKhm1BhhQ

Yet the FRPAA's flaws are ever so easily correctable:

The gist of the problem is all there in this well-meaning quote
by Senator John Cornyn (R, co-sponsor of the bill (with Senator
Joe Lieberman, D: quotation is from Robin Peek's Newsbreak in
Information Today):
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb060508-2.shtml

>     JC: "Making this information available to the public will lead
>     to faster discoveries, innovations and cures"..."

This same logic underlies the Bill itself.

The publisher lobby will (quite rightly) jump straight onto the
two profound errors in this reasoning, and they will use it, for
all its worth, against the Bill:

      (1) For most of the research literature, the public has neither the
      expertise nor the interest to read it.

      (2) Making it accessible to the public, does not make for cures!

[SNIP]