From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:19:19 +0000

Dear Colleagues,

Just a short note to mention that legally enshrined government
mandates create an inflexible framework and of course can only be
changed through law.

I would also like to again offer reassurance that Elsevier values our
on-going dialogue and partnership with NIH, and will continue to
engage closely.  Our two organizations have mutual interests in
advancing scholarly communication and biomedical research.  Elsevier
is keen to work closely with NIH to support its commitment to research
on the cure of human disease and the improvement of public health.

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
E: [log in to unmask] I T: @wisealic


-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Sent: 24 January 2012 02:57
Subject: Re: Elsevier, PMA, and RWA
From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]

To add to what Heather and Fred have already said, I'd like to point
out one last thing about this response. In the explanation of why
Elsevier supports this bill:


On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:41 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:51:55 +0000
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Elsevier hopes the Research Works Act will stimulate reflection about
> the appropriate role for US government agencies in expanding access.

That's very nice, and it sounds very reasonable.  But the legislation
doesn't ask for reflection or even the repeal or revision of the
earlier mandate.  Instead it mandates that the US government can never
mandate open access.  The bill states:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3699:

"No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or
otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that--

 "(1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any
private-sector research work without the prior consent of the
publisher of such work; or

 "(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer
of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network
dissemination of a private-sector research work."

This means that Elsevier isn't supporting some good faith, democratic,
balanced-stakeholder kind of conversation or reflection about the
"appropriate role for US government agencies in expanding access."
Instead, it is supporting a bill that would simply mandate that the US
government cannot mandate access in any case, even when it has paid
for the bulk of the research.  This is not reflection - except in so
far as it reflects corporate interests enshrined in US law.

Best,
Sean Andrews