Making Science Available
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.
Keep Reading
Most Popular
Large language models can do jaw-dropping things. But nobody knows exactly why.
And that's a problem. Figuring it out is one of the biggest scientific puzzles of our time and a crucial step towards controlling more powerful future models.
How scientists traced a mysterious covid case back to six toilets
When wastewater surveillance turns into a hunt for a single infected individual, the ethics get tricky.
The problem with plug-in hybrids? Their drivers.
Plug-in hybrids are often sold as a transition to EVs, but new data from Europe shows we’re still underestimating the emissions they produce.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.