Of apparent interest to this board: ---------------------------------------------------- List-ID: <SPARC-OAForum.arl.org> List-Archive: <https://arl.org:443/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/List.html> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 00:20:34 +0300 Subject: [SOAF] Open letter to Congress from 25 Nobel Laureates / Editorial and Publisher Corruption 2 September 2004 Dear Dr. Roberts, I appreciate your Open Letter to the U.S. Congress (available below as <https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/991.html>SPARC Open Access Forum posting). I am first hand involved in advancing the Open Access by leading an independent open access scholar publication Neurobiology of Lipids. Neurobiology of Lipids concept is that Open Access can benefit the Society as a non-profit model for cost-effective independent scholar journals with no publication charge. Further details are presented in my just submitted <http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/openaccess/sfn2004.html>invited lay language article [for the abstract "Open Access, a breakthrough for science that every neuroscientist should know about" by Koudinov and Suber] to be included in the Press Book of the 34th Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, October 23-27, 2004. I would like to enlighten another problem, the strong need to preserve public interest in biomedical publication, and a necessity to eliminate apparent Editorial and Publisher corruption that criticized by you traditional publishing system seems to be especially damaged with. One of the example of your letter states: "When a woman goes online to find what treatment options are available to battle breast cancer, the cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research remains behind a high-fee barrier. Families looking to read clinical trial updates for a loved one with Huntington's disease search in vain because they do not have a journal subscription." As an Alzheimer's researcher, I would add that when families decide for a loved one with Alzheimer's to join clinical trial, they reserve to have unbiased fair information on the disease. Unfortunately, it is not the case with Alzheimer's disease, the most devastating mind-robbing disease. Sadly, the corrupted unipolar public view on Alzheimer's is assisted by major journals such as Science, Nature, Neuron. This is studied in my written evidence 'Editorial and Publisher corruption' for UK House of Commons Science and Technology committee inquiry on Scientific Publication, <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we125.htm>a UK Parliamentary publication, and summarized in my <http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/content/3/2/neurolipids032004-01.html>Open Letter to President G.W. Bush . I hope you and other U.S. Nobel Prize winners will find my conclusions important to think about, and act upon. Taking into account a <http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/news/news2004.html#tribune200604>sad story of Pauline Phelps family, one may ask whether the corruption is still within academic reach or has become a matter of a fraud investigation by ones state Attorney General. I kindly ask you to send the copy of this e.mail to other US Nobel Prize winners. Sincerely, Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD neuroscientist, biochemist, editor http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/myjournalindex.html , http://koudinov.info ---------------------------------------------------------- At 09:37 AM 8/30/2004 -0400, you wrote: >An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress >Signed by 25 Nobel Prize Winners > > >August 26, 2004 > >Dear Members of Congress: > >As scientists and Nobel laureates, we are writing today to express our >strong support for the House Appropriations Committee's recent direction >to NIH to develop an open, taxpayer access policy requiring that a >complete electronic text of any manuscript reporting work supported by >NIH grants or contracts be supplied to the National Library of Medicine's >PubMed Central. We believe the time is now for all Members of Congress >to support this enlightened policy. > >Science is the measure of the human race's progress. As scientists and >taxpayers too, we therefore object to barriers that hinder, delay or >block the spread of scientific knowledge supported by federal tax dollars >including our own works. > >Thanks to the Internet, today the American people have access to several >billion pages of information, frequently about disease and medical >conditions. However, the published results of NIH-supported medical >research for which they already have paid are all too often inaccessible >to taxpayers. > >When a woman goes online to find what treatment options are available to >battle breast cancer, the cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research remains >behind a high-fee barrier. Families looking to read clinical trial >updates for a loved one with Huntington's disease search in vain because >they do not have a journal subscription. Libraries, physicians, health >care workers, students, researchers and thousands of academic >institutions and companies are hindered by the costs and delays in making >research widely accessible. > >There's no question, open access truly expands shared knowledge across >scientific fields -- it is the best path for accelerating >multi-disciplinary breakthroughs in research. > >Journal subscriptions can be prohibitively expensive. In the single >field of biology, journals average around $1,400 and the price is almost >double that in chemistry. These already-high prices are rising fast, far >in excess of inflation and the growth of library budgets. An individual >who cannot obtain access to a journal in a library may buy copies of solo >articles they need, but that can cost them $30 or more for each article. > >The National Institutes of Health has the means today to promote open >access to taxpayer-funded research through the National Library of >Medicine. If the proposal put forth in the House of Representatives is >adopted, NIH grantees may be expected to provide to the Library an >electronic copy of the final version of all manuscripts accepted for >publication, after peer review, in legitimate medical and scientific >journals. At the time of publication, NIH would make these reports >freely available to all through their digital library archive, PubMed >Central (PMC). > >There is widespread acknowledgement that the current model for scientific >publishing is failing us. An increase in the volume of research output, >rising prices and static library budgets mean that libraries are >struggling to purchase subscriptions to all the scientific journals >needed. > >Open access, however, will not mean the end of medical and scientific >journals at all. They will continue to exercise peer-review over >submitted papers as the basis for deciding which papers to accept for >publication, just as they do now. > >In addition, since open access will apply only to NIH-funded research; >journals will still contain significant numbers of articles not covered >by this requirement and other articles and commentary invaluable to the >science community. Journals will continue to be the hallmark of >achievement in scientific research, and we will depend on them. > >The trend towards open access is gaining momentum. Japan, France and the >United Kingdom are beginning to establish their own digital repositories >for sharing content with NIH's PubMed Central. Free access to taxpayer >funded research globally may soon be within grasp, and make possible the >freer flow of medical knowledge that strengthens our capacity to find >cures and to improve lives. > >As the undersigned Nobel Laureates, we are committed to open access. We >ask Congress and NIH to ensure that all taxpayers get their money's >worth. Our investment in scientific research is not well served by a >process that limits taxpayer access instead of expanding it. We >specifically ask you to support the House Appropriations Committee >language as well as NIH leadership in adopting this long overdue reform. > >Signed by Twenty Five Nobel Laureates > >Name, Category of Nobel Prize Awarded, Year > >Peter Agre, Chemistry, 2003 >Sidney Altman, Chemistry, 1989 >Paul Berg, Chemistry, 1980 >Michael Bishop, Physiology or Medicine, 1989 >Baruch Blumberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1976 >Gunter Blobel, Physiology or Medicine, 1999 >Paul Boyer, Chemistry, 1997 >Sydney Brenner, Physiology or Medicine, 2002 >Johann Deisenhofer, Chemistry, 1988 >Edmond Fischer, Physiology or Medicine, 1992 >Paul Greengard, Physiology or Medicine, 2000 >Leland Hartwell, Physiology or Medicine, 2001 >Robert Horvitz, Physiology or Medicine, 2002 >Eric Kandel, Physiology or Medicine, 2000 >Arthur Kornberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1959 >Roderick MacKinnon, Chemistry, 2003 >Kary Mullis, Chemistry, 1993 >Ferid Murad, Physiology or Medicine, 1998 >Joseph Murray, Physiology or Medicine, 1990 >Marshall Nirenberg, Physiology or Medicine, 1968 >Stanley Prusiner, Physiology or Medicine, 1997 >Richard Roberts, Physiology or Medicine, 1993 >Hamilton Smith, Physiology or Medicine, 1978 >Harold Varmus, Physiology or Medicine, 1989 >James Watson, Physiology or Medicine, 1962 > >Press Contact: >Dr. Richard J. Roberts >(Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,1993) >Tel: (978) 927-3382 >Fax: (978) 921-1527 >Email: roberts@neb.com
