Research Works Act

Research Works Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Research Works Act
Legislature	112th United States Congress
Introduced in the	House
Introduced by	Darrell Issa (R-CA-49)
Introduced date	December 16, 2011
Committees	House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Research Works Act. The Research Works Act was a proposed bill in the 112th United States Congress that sought to restrict public access to privately published scholarly articles resulting from federally funded research. Introduced by Representative Darrell Issa and co-sponsored by Carolyn Maloney, the legislation aimed to reverse certain National Institutes of Health public access policies. The bill ignited a major controversy within the scientific community and among open access advocates, becoming a focal point in debates over the control of academic publishing.

Background and legislative history

The legislative push for the Research Works Act emerged against the backdrop of the existing NIH Public Access Policy, implemented following the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. This policy mandated that research papers resulting from NIH grants be made freely available through the digital repository PubMed Central within twelve months of publication. The bill was formally introduced in the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2011, by Darrell Issa of California with support from Carolyn Maloney of New York. It was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which Issa chaired. The introduction followed extensive lobbying efforts by major commercial publishers, notably Elsevier and the Association of American Publishers.

Provisions of the bill

The bill contained provisions designed to prohibit federal agencies from conditioning their grants or requiring the dissemination of privately authored scholarly works. It specifically targeted policies that would cause such works to be made available for free without the consent of the publisher. The legislation sought to protect the copyright interests of entities like John Wiley & Sons and Springer Science+Business Media. A key clause aimed to prevent agencies like the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation from adopting policies similar to the NIH Public Access Policy. The text explicitly stated that no federal agency could adopt a policy causing the network dissemination of a private-sector work.

Support and arguments in favor

Support for the legislation was led by the publishing industry, with the Association of American Publishers and its then-chairman, Brian Crawford of ACS Publications, being vocal proponents. Publishers such as Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer argued the bill was necessary to protect the peer review system and the substantial investments made by private publishers in curating and distributing scientific literature. They contended that government mandates for public access undermined the sustainability of their business models and the quality of scholarly communication. Supporters framed the issue as one of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing government overreach into the private market of academic publishing.

Opposition and criticism

The bill faced immediate and fierce opposition from a broad coalition of open access advocates, researchers, universities, and libraries. A pivotal moment came when Harvard University's Faculty Advisory Council publicly criticized the rising costs of journal subscriptions. Prominent opponents included the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, and internet activist Aaron Swartz. Critics argued the bill would force taxpayers to pay twice for research—first through federal grants from agencies like the NIH and again through expensive journal subscriptions. A widespread online protest was catalyzed by a boycott announced by thousands of academics against Elsevier, often referred to as the Cost of Knowledge boycott. Notable figures like Michael Eisen and Peter Suber denounced the legislation as an attack on scientific progress and public knowledge.

Legislative outcome and aftermath

Facing overwhelming public criticism and a lack of broad political support, the Research Works Act never advanced out of committee. Its sponsors, Darrell Issa and Carolyn Maloney, formally withdrew their support for the bill on February 27, 2012. The collapse of the legislation was seen as a significant victory for the open access movement. In direct response, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, under Director John Holdren, issued a memorandum in 2013 expanding public access requirements to other major federal agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. The debate directly influenced the subsequent development and introduction of the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act in subsequent sessions of Congress.

Category:Proposed federal legislation of the United States Category:Academic publishing Category:Open access