APPENDIX 5
Memorandum from Paul Pinter
1. IDENTIFYING
INTERESTED PARTIES
The Committee will be receiving submissions
and hearing evidence from many organisations, mainly members of
the academic and research communities in the UK. There are, however,
other categories of "interested parties" seeking to
benefit from the dissemination of scientific data. These include
institutions in other countries, among them the "third world",
and individuals who generally pass unnoticed because they tend
not to be organised or officially represented. They range from
the simply curious to the person needing information about the
latest medical treatment, to the unaffiliated individual, such
as myself, independently carrying out a complex research program
from which the public may ultimately benefit.
We are all aware of the information revolution
driven by the Internet. It is however not usually appreciated
that this transformation has fundamentally changed the function
and place of scientific knowledge in society. It is no longer
a secret language, as in the Middle Ages, understood only by a
few select brethren. Now everybody has, or should have, instant
access to the full range of theory and data published continuously
online on every conceivable subject. A recent survey by the American
Customer Satisfaction Index has measured web site popularity scores
of 88 for Amazon (no 1), 86 for MEDLINE (no 2) and 79 for NASA
(no 4). Ready availability of scientific data online has subtly
altered the relationship between society and academic institutions,
largely by freeing up the previous dependency of the former on
the latter. The result is acknowledged by academics themselves
who frequently benefit from data provided by so-called amateurs,
unfortunately rarely giving credit where it is due. It is now
recognised that unaffiliated individuals have a constructive role
to play in advancing science and have as legitimate a right to
access scientific and technical material as do institutions.
2. THE CURRENT
SITUATION IN
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING
A situation has developed in the last couple
of years whereby a handful of publishers have obtained a virtual
monopoly on the dissemination of scientific and technical data.
One in particular, Elsevier, now controls roughly 25% of peer
reviewed scientific journals, along with major portals such as
ScienceDirect, BioMedNet and Scirus, the science search engine.
To make matters worse, the journals in question were not randomly
selected—they represent all the highest quality and therefore
most frequently cited in their field. This allows Elsevier to
levy exorbitant charges for access to their information, so high
in fact that even very well endowed universities such as Cornell
are not able to maintain their subscriptions. With few exceptions,
most major publishers now charge between $25 and $50 per online
article which may, incidentally, only contain two or three pages
of text. The previous generally agreed convention of providing
free access six months after first publication is no longer honored
by this company and is tending to be abandoned by others in the
rush to maximise profits. There is furthermore a kind of Devil's
pact operating between publishers and certain academics seeking
to perpetuate this situation from which they both profit. Does
this matter?
3. THE CONSEQUENCES
OF INACTION
The repercussions are serious. Consider universities
in Africa, Asia and South America, or even our neighbours in Eastern
Europe. These institutions are vastly under funded and could not
conceivably afford the publications "packages" such
as those offered by Elsevier costing millions of dollars annually.
The result is of course an increasing marginalisation of science
and scientists in poorer countries, with a growing gulf in technological
proficiency and economic development between rich and poor, not
to mention the enormous waste of talent and human resources. Similar
considerations apply to unaffiliated individuals, even those in
"rich" countries. If this situation is allowed to continue
uncontrolled, where will it lead us over the decades to come?
Perhaps current tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds
give us a clue. Efforts to solve this problem must therefore be
addressed globally and not confined simply to solving difficulties
affecting UK institutions.
4. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
When one company, Celera, threatened to patent
and thereby control the human genome, the UK Prime Minister and
the US President didn't hesitate to stand together and announce
that this information belonged to the world—it could not
be "owned" by anybody. Where is the line between sequencing
of the human genome and scientific information in general? When
one media company tries to acquire more than three major daily
newspapers, the state does not hesitate to forbid this in order
to prevent creation of an information monopoly. What is the difference
between current events news and scientific information? When the
UK Government itself proposes variable fee structures for universities,
it is forced to back down before accusations of perpetuating divisions
between rich and poor students. There are direct parallels between
these cases and the scientific publications monopoly problem.
What measures can the Government take in a free, democratic society?
In the US there is currently legislation being
considered by the Congress (Public Access to Science Act introduced
by Rep. Martin Sabo last June) which would deny copyright protection
to the results of any scientific investigation funded even partly
by federal grants. This would include a large majority of all
US scientific work, as well as a considerable amount outside the
country. The idea is that this work has already been funded by
the American public who should not be made to pay for it twice.
Would this not be just as applicable in the UK?
Clearly there is a problem in legislating solely
in the UK when many publishers and titles are not British. The
problem of intellectual property rights as applied to scientific
data must be tackled on a global, or at least US-EU-wide, basis.
Nevertheless an immediate start can be made with Elsevier, by
far the worst offender and subsidiary of a UK-registered company,
Reed Elsevier Group plc, which in their latest accounts of 2002
declared a turnover of more than five billion pounds with profits
of just under one billion pounds. This group should be obliged
to divest itself of the majority of its titles and gateways. After
suitable legislation, the British Library Document Supply Centre
could make all their titles, and others, available online with
a maximum price set at say five dollars per article, or some similar
figure to cover costs, subsidised as necessary.
The argument is sometimes advanced that removing
the profit incentive would drastically reduce the flow of published
research results. This is patently false as any serious academic
publisher will readily testify that the main reason for publishing
is prestige. Although some reduction might result from the above
suggestions, this might actually be beneficial as much material
appears as "filler" and would not be missed. It would
also slow the current harmful proliferation of cloned journals
produced for no other reason than to improve sales and profits.
This problem is not simply of theoretical interest.
It requires urgent action.
January 2004
|
