[eifloa] "To law or not to law"
Iryna Kuchma
kuchma at irf.kiev.ua
Thu Nov 15 10:52:57 EET 2007
Dear Audrone and colleagues,
Maybe this information will be helpful in your discussions:
1.
Require or Encourage? IGWG text on open access
November 14th, 2007 by Manon Anne Ress
See Blog at:
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=39
Re: The WHO IGWG Text on Access to Publicly Funded Research
Provision, from “Requirement” to “Encouragement”?
One of the outcomes of the Nov. 5-10, 2007 second session of the WHO (World
Health Organisation)
Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and
Intellectual Property (IGWG2) is a provision on access to government
funded research.
Where did this provision come from, and how did it it evolve from
“requirements” to “strongly encouraging” that “all investigators
funded by governments submit to an open access database an electronic
version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts,” and what does it
mean?
The open access access issue was not in the original July Secretariat
draft Global Strategy document. It appeared for the first time in the
so called “Rio Text,” that came out of two meetings (one in Bolivia
in August and one in Brazil in September) with Argentina, Brazil,
Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras,
Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela. (WHO Doc A/PHI/IGWG/
2/2 ANNEX).
The following was how it was presented in the Rio text:
(2.5) Ensuring access to knowledge and technology relevant to
meet public health needs of developing countries
(a) put in place measures that safeguard the public domain.
(b)promote public access to the results of government funded
research, through requirements that all investigators funded by
governments submit to an open access database an electronic version
of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts.
(c)support the creation of open databases and compound
libraries, including unrestricted access to drug leads identified
through the screening of compound libraries,
(d) encourage developed countries, universities and donors to
require that publicly or donor funded medical inventions and know-how
be made available through open licensing for use in developing
countries on reasonable and affordable nondiscriminatory terms.
(e)consider the incorporation of research exemptions in
legislation of developing countries to address public health needs,
consistent with their obligations, if any, under the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Doha
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
However, last week the IGWG negotiators met, and made changes. The
good news is that there is still an open access provision, apparently
accepted by consensus. But the “requirements” language has been
replaced with a watered down “strong encouragement” language in the
version of the text distributed Saturday at the end of the meeting
(Geneva Nov.5-10, 2007). (See:http://www.oliver-moldenhauer.de/msf/
draftIGWG.pdf, A/PHI/IGWG/2/Con.Paper No.1 November 10 2007).
Draft global strategy and plan of action on public health,
innovation and intellectual property
Progress to date in Drafting groups A and B
. . .
(2.5) Promoting greater access to knowledge and technology
relevant to meet health needs of developing countries. (consensus)
a) promote the creation and development of accessible public
health libraries in order to enhance availability and use of relevant
publications by universities, institutes and technical centers,
especially in developing countries. (consensus)
(b) promote public access to the results of government funded
research, by strongly encouraging that all investigators funded by
governments submit to an open access database and electronic version
of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts. (consensus)
[(c) support the creation of open databases and compound
libraries, including [unrestricted] / [promoting] access to drug
leads identified through the screening of compound libraries.]
(d) encourage developed countries, universities and donors to
require that publicly or donor funded medical inventions and know-how
be made available through open licensing for use in developing
countries on reasonable and affordable non-discriminatory terms.
(e) consider the incorporation of research exemptions in
legislation of developing countries to address public health needs,
consistent with their obligations, if any, under the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Doha
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.]
Apparently, during last week meeting, there was opposition to the
“requirement” language by some European countries.
It looks a lot like the “old and failed” NIH non-mandatory policy
that the US Congress is trying to change, and may disappoint open
access advocates. However, it also means that there is a global, yes,
global agreement that government funded research should be open
access, and when the IGWG plan of action is designed, it will be
seeking to implement this A2K initiative. We will be following this
carefully.
************************************************************************
***
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress at keionline.org,
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673
1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
Il vaut mieux remuer une question, sans la dйcider, que la dйcider,
sans la remuer.
Pensйes, essais, maximes et correspondance de J. Joubert p.249
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-88671
Translation: It is better to debate a question without settling it
than to settle a question without debating it
_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
2.
Why was the WHO IGWG OA recommendation
http://www.oliver-moldenhauer.de/msf/draftIGWG.pdf
downgraded from "requiring" OA to just "strongly encouraging" it?
As Manon Ress and Peter Suber point out,
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=39&p=97
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/who-igwg2-waters-down-draft-oa-mandate.html
this is simply a replay of the failed NIH policy,
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/3962.html
likewise downgraded from a requirement, tried for 2 years, resoundingly
unsuccessful, and now being upgraded again to a requirement by the US
Congress (only to be vetoed by George Bush).
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/317-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/326-guid.html
As repeatedly shown by Alma Swan's surveys of what authors say they
will do and Arthur Sale's studies of what authors actually do, only a
requirement (mandate) works.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html
The following prior wording:
(b) promote public access to the results of government funded
research, THROUGH REQUIREMENTS that all investigators funded by
governments submit to an open access database an electronic version
of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts.
has for some reason been changed to:
(b) promote public access to the results of government funded
research, BY STRONGLY ENCOURAGING that all investigators funded by
governments submit to an open access database an electronic version
of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts.
(George Santayana (on being condemned to repeat history) comes to mind.)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana
---------------------------------------------------------------
Candor prompts the following shame-faced disclosure: In the very first
mandate recommendation of them all, this feckless archivangelist also
cravenly allowed himself to be persuaded once -- but only once! -- to
equivocate on mandating vs. "strongly encouraging," despite having
insisted on the need to mandate self-archiving from the outset.
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/
To mortify me, compare the original wording of the 2003 recommendation
first submitted to the UK Parliamentary Select Committee
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm
with the subsequent (downgraded) version:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we151.htm
Fortunately, only one mention of "mandate" was diluted to "strong
encouragement," the rest of the mentions are all the m-word, and it was
that, fortunately, that the wise members of the Select Committee hewed
to in their ultimate recommendation...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
If you have adopted or plan to adopt an policy of providing Open Access
to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access
journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your own institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
3.
I sent this information yesterday, but I am not sure it was sent (I didn't
get a copy) so just in case I am repeating it.
European Commission Press Release PRE 057/07 (Presse) (Brussels, 12 November
2007) announces that the next meeting of Research Ministers of the European
Union will take place in Brussels on 22 and 23 November 2007.
The Press Release says that the meeting will be chaired by the Portugese
Ministers for Economy and Innovation, and for Science Technology and Higher
Education (Mr Manuel Pinho and Mr Mariano Gago).
And it announces that one of the agenda items will be "Adoption Of Council
Conclusions, Scientific information in the digital age: access,
dissemination and preservation".
The key document for this agenda item is the European Commission's
"Communication on Scientific information in the digital age: ..." of
February 2007 [1].
The Commission's "Communication" concludes <<The Commission invites the
European Parliament and Council to debate the relevant issues on the basis
of the present Communication.>>
As of today (2007-11-13 08:04), the European Parliament is still only at the
<<Preparatory phase>> [2]
But the Press Release shows that European Council of Ministers has done its
work and is ready to adopt some Conclusions. These Conclusions will have
been prepared and agreed by a confidential working party of civil servants
and advisers from all 27 Member States of the EU. What are those Conclusions
likely to be? Undoubtedly there are readers of this list who were on that
that working party, and who could tell us. But the only information in the
public domain is that Portugal firmly supports the principle of Open Access
[3].
So we have to wait for the press conference at the end of the session. And
if you do not have a Brussels Press Pass you can follow the press
conferences live at [4]. Or just wait for the next Press Release, probably
on the 26 November.
N.Miradon
[1]
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/scientific_information/communication_en.pdf
[2]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByDocnum.do?lang=en&docnum=COM/2007/0056
[3] https://arl.org/lists/sparc-oaforum/Message/3492.html
[4] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/videostreaming
All the best!
Iryna.
More information about the eifloa
mailing list