Publishers Unveil patientINFORM

With the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) plan to open up access to the research endorsed by Congress (see News, LJ 12/04, p. 22), a nascent collective of commercial STM publishers and medical groups announced their own plan for increased access. The coalition effort, patientINFORM (www.patientinform.org), includes top commercial STM publishers Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley, plus the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Diabetes Association, among others.

In the spring, the site will offer research on cancer, diabetes, and heart disease for free, as well as commentary and other links to information sources. SPARC director Rick Johnson, a supporter of the NIH proposal, said, "It is ironic that this limited experiment has only now emerged after a majority of public interest and patient advocates already have weighed in to support the NIH-enhanced public access program."

Wiley spokesperson Susan Spilka called the proposal "a parallel development that addresses the same concerns." She acknowledged, however, that the announcement was "accelerated so that it can be considered an alternative to the NIH proposal." She asserted that patientINFORM would be more effective than the NIH proposal at getting useful research information to the public "because it couples raw research with interpretive materials aimed at consumers." Johnson said that any effort to further free research should be welcomed but argued that it should not detract from the NIH plan.

With the official comment period now closed for the NIH proposal, a quick survey of the remarks filed reveals deep divisions. In a legal analysis by the American Physiological Society (APS) in conjunction with American Association of Immunologists (AAI), questions were raised regarding the plan's infringement of "copyright interests," as well as a host of other bureaucratic federal rules.

In response, the legal scholars advising the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA), a coalition supporting the NIH proposal, quickly dismissed the APS/AAI analysis. Michael Carroll, adviser to ATA and a professor at Villanova University School of Law, said that the NIH has always had license to reproduce, publish, and archive the research results for which it has paid. Meanwhile, the APS/AAI statements cite other federal policies and regulations the NIH proposal seemingly violates, including the Freedom of Information Act and an Office of Management and Budget circular that says the NIH must perform a "cost comparison study."