RE: Funding threshold (RE: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH research)

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

> According to NIH, their Public Access Policy applies "to
> peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been
> supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH."  The
> legislation does not change the requirement.

But NIH policy and federal legislation are not the same thing. 
NIH policy says "supported in whole or in part."  But H.R. 3043 
says "funded by the NIH" and doesn't clarify.  If the law is 
passed with the current language, then we'll have an interesting 
situation: in a way, what has been up until now only a "request" 
from the NIH will acquire the force of law.  But because the law 
doesn't set as strict a definition of "funded" as NIH policy 
does, it won't be clear whether or not NIH's definition of 
"funded" also has the force of law behind it.  The requirement 
will be very clear for any research that was wholly funded by the 
NIH, but for research that was partly funded by the NIH and 
partly by other bodies, I think the situation will be ambiguous. 
That may seem like a niggling legalistic point, but niggling 
legalistic points can have significant consequences.

I don't mean to harp endlessly on this issue, but it does seem to 
me like it's an important one.  Maybe I've just negotiated too 
many license agreements.  :-)

---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu