This is really good news:

The Obama administration announced on Friday a major new policy aimed at increasing public access to federally financed research. The policy, delivered in a memorandum from John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, applies to federal agencies that spend more than $100-million a year to support research and development.

In the memo, Mr. Holdren directed those agencies to develop "clear and coordinated policies" to make the results of research they support publicly available within a year of publication. The new policy also requires scientific data from unclassified, federally supported research to be made available to the public "to search, retrieve, and analyze." Affected agencies have six months to decide how to carry out the policy. …

It was clear that a number of federal agencies already had preparations under way for how they would observe the new policy. For instance, the National Science Foundation immediately sent out a statement affirming its commitment to the principle of public access, saying it had already established a timetable for consultation and planning. It noted that the "implementation details" were likely to vary by discipline "and that new business models for universities, libraries, publishers, and scholarly and professional societies could emerge."

Friday's announcement capped a lengthy process of consultation with various stakeholders that sought public input on access to federally financed research and data. More than 65,000 people have signed a petition on the White House's We the People Web site calling for free online access to scientific-journal articles based on taxpayer-supported research.

via chronicle.com

My only beef is that the policy is too limited. I don't know what sort of data might still be private, but why limit this to agencies that spend more than $100 million a year?

Posted in
  1. Michael Giberson Avatar

    I’m a fan of the idea that subsidized energy companies, at least when the subsidy is justified in part as promoting technology improvements with future payoffs, should have to share as much data as possible about the technology and its performance.
    For example, tax credits for wind and solar power are often promoted as ways to help lower the cost of wind and solar in the future. It seems obvious to me that sharing performance data on subsidized power plants in the most open way possible would help accelerate the spread of good, cost saving ideas.
    Why does the government want to squash the obvious public good benefits?

  2. willwheels Avatar

    John, I can’t answer your question about the $100 million/year cutoff (I mean I don’t know the answer, by the way), but if I’m reading my budget tables correctly, that exclusion leaves out less than one percent of Federal R&D spending

  3. John Whitehead Avatar

    Thanks, so the additional paperwork cost might be greater than the R&D benefits for small agencies?

  4. willwheels Avatar

    The rationale is quite possibly something like that. I can’t seem to find a breakdown of the agencies under $100 million (they are lumped as “other”).
    Also, $100 million/year is the legal cutoff for an SBIR program, so that threshold might be useful in identifying agencies.

  5. Ben Ho Avatar

    well actually, it was the opposite policy under the George HW Busy administration, that made federally funded research owned by the university/researcher that is credited for a huge increase in practical university education.
    It’s a simple matter of giving incentives for innovation.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Environmental Economics

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading