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