Doyle Hails Passage of Legislation to
Make Federally-Funded Research Available to the Public

Pittsburgh, PA – July 19, 2007 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) today praised the passage of legislation to make research funded by the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH) more accessible to doctors and the public.

“The American People paid for this research,” Congressman Doyle observed.  “I think it’s only fair that they have access to the results.  Passage of this legislation will make NIH-funded research available to the public for free within a year of its completion.”

 “Faster and wider sharing of knowledge fuels the advancement of science,” Congressman Doyle added.  “Access to taxpayer-funded research would also improve trans-NIH coordination, avoid duplication of expensive research, make the management of NIH activities more efficient, and ensure a greater return on investment of NIH funded research.”

The NIH funds nearly $30 billion in biomedical research each year, but the results of this federally-funded research is often only available in scientific journals with limited circulation and astronomical subscription fees.  NIH has tried to encourage the publishers of these journals to voluntarily submit their articles to the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for inclusion in its publicly accessible on-line data base.  Unfortunately, very few of the publishers have done so.

Congressman Doyle and other concerned Members of Congress have been working to require that NIH-funded research be made available to the public on-line after a reasonable period of time.  Congressman Doyle worked unsuccessfully to have this provision included in the NIH reauthorization bill enacted last year.

Today, however, a provision mandating that articles describing research funded by NIH be provided to the National Library of Medicine within 12 months of publication was included in H.R. 3043, the bill funding the operations of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education next year.

NIH convened a panel of experts representing stakeholders called the NIH Public Access Working Group.  That Working Group has twice recommended that to effectively achieve the goals of public access to taxpayer-funded research, the policy needed to require submission of manuscripts within 6 months of publication.  The Committee struck a balance between publishers and the Working Group and institutes a 12 month embargo.

“I’ve been working to make federally funded research available to the people who paid for it for some time now,” Congressman Doyle observed.  “I’m pleased that today we’ve come one step closer to achieving this goal.  This legislation will ensure that the peer-review process is not disrupted and that research will continue to be published.” 

This policy is also widely supported by hundreds of college and university provosts and presidents, libraries, researchers, patient and disease advocacy organizations, educators and students, and consumer groups.  Recently, 26 Nobel Laureate scientists sent a letter to Congress recently expressing their support for this change.  The text of that letter follows below.

An Open Letter to the U.S. Congress
Signed by 26 Nobel Prize Winners

July 8, 2007

Dear Members of Congress:

As scientists and Nobel laureates, we are writing to express our strong support for the House Appropriations Committee's recent directive to the NIH to enact a mandatory policy that allows public access to published reports of work supported by the agency. We believe that the time is now for Congress to enact this enlightened policy to ensure that the results of research conducted by NIH can be more readily accessed, shared and built upon – to maximize the return on our collective investment in science and to further the public good.

As we noted in a letter to Congress urging action on this policy nearly three years ago, we 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, we can transform the speed and ease with which the results of research can be shared and built upon. However, to our great frustration, the results of NIH-supported medical research continue to be largely inaccessible to taxpayers who have already paid for it.

Despite best intentions, the voluntary policy enacted by NIH over two years ago has simply not improved public access significantly. As active scientists, it does not surprise us that a request – with neither incentives nor consequences attached – to submit our articles so that they are freely available simply does not make the lengthy “to-do” lists of our colleagues. We firmly agree with NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, who indicated in his testimony to the Senate LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee this year that only a mandatory policy will be an effective policy. Requiring compliance is not a punitive measure, but rather a simple step to ensure that everyone, including scientists themselves, will reap the benefits that public access can provide. We have seen this amply demonstrated in other innovative efforts within the NIH – most notably with the database that contains the outcome of the Human Genome Project.

The public at large also has a significant stake in seeing that this research is made more widely available. When a woman goes online to find what treatment options are available to battle breast cancer, she will find many opinions, but peer-reviewed research of the highest quality often remains behind a high-fee barrier. Families seeking clinical trial updates for a loved one with Huntington's disease search in vain because they do not have a journal subscription. Librarians, physicians, health care workers, students, journalists, and investigators at thousands of academic institutions and companies are currently hindered by unnecessary costs and delays in gaining access to publicly funded research results.

Over the past three years, public access to work produced in other countries has been greatly expanded. Both government and philanthropic funding agencies in several nations have outpaced the U.S. in advancing policies for sharing the results of their funded research, with rules that are more stringent than those now employed by the NIH. In the United Kingdom alone, 5 of the 7 Research Councils and the leading foundations
that support science have enacted mandatory public access policies; it is now estimated that 90% of the
biomedical research funded in the U.K. is covered by a mandatory enhanced- or open-access policy. Enhanced

public access will not, of course, 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. The experience of dozens of publishers has shown that even with embargo periods of 6 months (or shorter), journals continue to thrive. In addition, since this policy will apply only to NIH-funded research, journals will contain significant numbers of articles not covered by this requirement as well as 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 NIH, with Congress’ direction, has the means today to promote enhanced access to taxpayer-funded research through the National Library of Medicine. NIH grantees should be required to provide to the NLM an electronic copy of the final version of all manuscripts accepted for publication by legitimate medical and scientific journals, after peer review. As soon as possible after the time of publication, NIH should make these reports freely available to all through their digital archive, PubMed Central (PMC).

We strongly encourage you to realize this overdue reform by adopting language in the FY08 Appropriations measure that requires the NIH Public Access Policy to be made mandatory.

Signed by 26 Nobel Laureates:

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
Harold Kroto, Chemistry, 1996
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

###