Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

NIH grant recipients are being caught in the middle – in between having to comply with a new National Institute of Health request that they submit their results to a public Web site within a year after they are published in a scientific journal, and between the desires of the publishers of their scientific work.

The NIH just instituted a policy of “asking” its scientific grantees to make their work publicly available – whatever that means. Meanwhile, researchers must walk a thin line between such requests and keeping their scientific publishers happy. The policy seems to make no one happy.

I’m all in favor of greater availability – it makes no sense to me that research paid for by American taxpayers (whether under the auspices of the NIH or some other scientific society) should be locked away for the benefit of scientific publishers. That includes, in my opinion, mainstream journals such as Science or Nature. But the NIH ought to qualify its ruling by demanding access, not asking for it.

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me