Publishing Bill Puts Medical Research At Risk

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Publishing Bill Puts Medical Research At Risk (NAPSA)—Publish or perish maybe true in academia, butit is not true when it comes to scientific and medical articles that have not gone through peer review. The nation’s oldest consumer group is warning that a proposal for the government to post scientific and medical articles on the amas] Internet “is significantly likely to backfire,” and could jeopardize the quality-control process medical research goes through before being published. The National Consumers League (NCL) alerted members of the U.S. Senate on December Ist about problems with the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, which would force medical and scientific journals to turn over some of their articles to the government for reposting on the Internet. In a letter from NCL President Linda F. Golodner to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the bill’s chief architect, the group warned that the measure “would transform the peer review, quality control system at the heart of today’s American medical research program into an unfunded mandate.” A Risky Idea “When it comes to developing cures for cancer, heart disease or diabetes, or addressing other fundamental challenges to the health of our families and children, we cannot afford this risk,” Golodner wrote to Sen. Cornyn, along with Senators Joseph Lieberman (DConn.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who are co-sponsorsofthe bill. Peer review is the process by which medical and scientific experts examine research to determine its accuracy, and is used to separate pure science from “junk science.” The concern is that if medical journals are forced to The National Consumers League warns that jeopardizing peer review is a risk to “the health of our families and children.” give awaytheir articles to the government, researchers and others would read the free articles posted on the Internet rather than pay for a subscription to such journals. “After having made the investment in quality control, the journal would be forced to have its publication rights for the article eclipsed by the federal government long before recouping its cost,” which has been estimated at nearly $200 million per year, according to industry sources. Public May Be Chief Loser The NCLis concerned that the bill could put peer review journals out of business, a move that would lower the standards for medical andscientific research. “The chief loser, should these concerns materialize, would be the public at large, the consumers whobenefit from scientific and medical research,” warned the NCL. The bill’s supporters want the government to post medical and scientific articles based on federally funded research on the Internet. However, the costly peer review and publishing processis paid for by publishers of not-forprofit and commercial journals, not the government.