Many websites, or ads placed on websites, quietly install cookies, beacons, and other tracking files on Internet users’ computers whenever they are accessed. Cookies generally perform harmless tasks like allowing websites to remember usernames and passwords for future logins. But some cookies can track the websites a user visits, while beacons, which consist of more complex software, can actually track what an Internet user is doing on a website—from the buttons they click to the words they type. Some tracking files may even locate and record sensitive information such as the incomes, locations, and medical conditions of Internet users.

In an examination of the top 50 most visited websites, The Wall Street Journal estimated in July 2010 that approximately two-thirds of tracking files from these sites were dispatched by tracking firms that compile Internet users’ personal information into consumer profiles. These profiles can then be sold to Internet companies to assist them in developing more personalized web services and advertisements.

A number of bills have recently been proposed in Congress to address the privacy concerns raised by the collection of this kind of information. In April 2011, Sens. John Kerry and John McCain put forth the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011, which would require Internet companies to increase the transparency of their privacy policies, acquire consent before acquiring sensitive information, and give users the option to opt out of being tracked.

In May, Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller introduced the Do Not Track Online Act of 2011, which would complement Kerry and McCain’s bill with a mandate for an across-the-board “do not track” option that would allow Internet users to prevent all websites from tracking them instead of having to opt out for each one. A similar bill specifically aimed at children, the Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011, was introduced to the House that same month. It calls for amending the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, or COPPA, to include teenagers, require online companies to obtain parental consent before acquiring personal information from minors, and an “eraser button” to allow users to eliminate personal information online, among other things.

On June 27, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel of leaders and experts in Internet privacy who discussed the problems of Internet tracking and the merits of proposals to fix them. A video of the event can be viewed here.

The keynote speaker at the event, Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill, said that the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, is compiling a preliminary report on a new privacy framework proposal, which recommends that companies build privacy protections into new products and use more transparent policies that can be understood by consumers. The commission also supports the creation of a “do not track” mechanism. “Our proposal is a technology driven approach that will allow consumers to make persistent choices that will travel with them through cyberspace, communicating tracking preferences to every website they visit,” said Brill.

Ed Felton, the chief technology officer of the FTC, said that web browsers like Microsoft Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox have already started developing antitracking features, like Tracking Protection Lists and Do Not Track Flags, both of which allow users to block websites from tracking them. “These technologies exist, they’re out there,” said Felton. “Three of the four major browsers now support them and we’re now seeing a dialogue about how to put the choices users are expressing into effect.”

All of the panelists emphasized a need to protect children online, especially Jim Steyer, the founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the media lives of families and children. “Privacy is an incredibly important issue for kids and families,” he said.  “COPPA was written in 1998, which is like the stone ages. I believe there should be new legislation written.”

Although many people agree that kids need protection on the Internet, not everyone agrees on the components of the recent Do Not Track Kids Act. “Most people have applauded the motivation of this bill,” said Chris Wolf, a partner of Hogan Lovells LLC and co-director of the Future of Privacy Forum, who addressed a number of concerns that have been raised in response to the act. “The reactions have been mixed [so] it probably makes sense to carefully look at what this bill would accomplish.”

The act might require websites to verify the ages of Internet users, which seems contrary to the intentions of the bill because it would require the collection of even more personal data. It could also prevent underage Internet users from accessing lawful and benign content for personal or educational purposes. Additionally, the act would have to contend with industry’s First Amendment right to commercial free speech and the fact that the technology to erase personal information from all parts of the web has not been invented yet.

Peter Swire, a professor of law at Ohio State Law School and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, discussed the importance of finding the right balance between consumer choice and industry expense. “I have a slightly more optimistic view,” said Swire, who noted that other privacy issues have been successfully solved in the past through legislation like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA; the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act, or CAN-SPAM; and other initiatives. “We have found ways to manage them through technology, self regulation and legislation,” said Swire.

While the diverse perspectives in the privacy discourse have their merits, Swire urged participants to refocus the discussion on the future. “One of my questions for kids and privacy is, five years from now, what will be obvious that we should have done now and that we’ll all do then?”

Michelle Spektor is an intern with Science Progress, and a rising senior at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY.

Earlier this month, the Texas Forest Service warned that “critical drought conditions, high temperatures and high winds are combining to create a perfect storm for wildfire,” adding that conditions “could shape up to be among the worst in Texas history.” And conditions are likely to deteriorate further. The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook issued on April 7th and valid through June 2011 indicates that drought is likely to persist or intensify in Texas.

“The current drought cannot be absolutely attributed to climate change, but it is consistent with the warming and drying conditions expected for this area based on climate change projections,” said Connie Woodhouse, Associate Professor Geography & Regional Development, University of Arizona.  “Water resources in Texas are already stressed.  The inevitable warming and drying in the future will only make droughts like this worse.”

Members of Congress are misleading their constituents by not acknowledging that the climate is changing and heat-trapping pollution is responsible.  A majority of the House voted to reject an amendment affirming an understanding of climate science to a bill in the House.  While the bill would compromise the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to enforce the Clean Air Act, the rejected amendment simply called on Congress to at least accept the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution threatens the health and welfare of Americans with a wide range of impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts and wildfires.

The current drought is not expected to end anytime soon. The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook for April – June, 2011 indicates persistent drought for most of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico and large parts of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas as well as parts of the southeast.

These conditions come as no surprise to scientists.  Nearly two years ago the U.S. Global Change Research Program stated, “Human-induced climate change appears to be well underway in the Southwest. Recent warming is among the most rapid in the nation, significantly more than the global average in some areas.”  And that was an affirmation of years of research reporting the same conclusions.

It’s a double whammy for Texas and the Southwest. “What’s happening today in Texas and the Southwest should be a wake-up call on climate change. These are the kinds of conditions that we expect to see more often as climate warms,” said Dr. Julia Cole, Professor of Geosciences, University of Arizona.

“Droughts like this can be triggered by natural causes like the La Niña that is now dying down in the Pacific. But the same pattern of drought is expected to become more frequent as the world warms. In both cases, we expect to see the storms that normally bring rain to the southwestern US move northwards, and our region to become drier. Warming temperatures will only make the drying worse.”

But right now, Congress isn’t listening.  “We need our elected leaders to get serious about climate change and stop putting ideology ahead of science.  There is no question that the carbon that we’re putting into the air, and that will stay there for hundreds of years, is trapping heat and warming the planet.  Anyone who contends that climate change is simply due to natural variation is either deluding themselves, their audiences or both,” said Dan Lashof, Director of the Climate Center for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Last year, the most authoritative and respected scientific body in the world, the National Academy of Sciences, reported to Congress, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.”

“Records from tree rings show us that droughts much more severe than any we’ve experienced to date have occurred in the western US in the past and there is no reason to think droughts of this magnitude could not occur in the future… but under warmer temperatures.  Increases in water demand where supplies are limited, along with inevitable droughts, and the added effects of climate change dictate some serious thinking about the ways we use water,” added Dr. Woodhouse

The burning of over 88,000 acres and 58 homes in Western Texas led Texas Forest Service spokesman Lewis Kearney to say, “With the drought pattern Texas has had, fire season now is almost running 12 months out of the year. I mean that’s not normal.”

“Unfortunately, it is the new normal,” says Nick Sundt of the World Wildlife Fund in a recent post. As Forrest Wilder said in February in the Texas Observer:

‘While Republicans in Congress, led by members of the Texas GOP delegation, work to defund and defang the EPA, climate change – and the science of climate – marches on. The GOP’s willful suspension of trust in what ever-mounting evidence – and dare I say, common sense? – tells us is happening to the planet is not just short-sighted. It’s reckless.’”

This repost is excerpted from two articles by Abbey Watson at The Project on Climate Science and Nick Sundt at the World Wildlife Fund.

Let’s be clear. Congress should not attempt to make scientific decisions. The role of Congress is to take the best science and use it to make the best possible policy. The three amendments rejected unanimously by committee Republicans each lays out a fairly basic statement about generally accepted climate science.

• Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado offered an amendment that simply reaffirmed what EPA scientists stated, that “‘the scientific evidence is compelling’ that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic emissions ‘are the root cause of recently observed climate change.’” That amendment was rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.
• Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington state offered an amendment, again quoting the EPA, which stated “the public health of current generations is endangered and the threat to public health for both current and future generations will likely mount over time as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and result in ever greater rates of climate change.’” This, too, was rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.
• The last amendment, offered by Rep. Henry Waxman of southern California, asserted even more unassailable scientific findings. His amendment stated simply that “Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” It was also unanimously rejected in a party-line vote with all Republicans voting no.

This is really getting ridiculous. In countries around the world, political parties on the left and right are debating how to deal with climate change. But by continuing to debate whether the world is even warming—an objective, empirical, verifiable, scientific fact—our great nation is demonstrating to the rest of the world that we are still in the Stone Age on this issue.

Let’s keep in mind that virtually every credible climate scientist and science organization, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, has declared climate change a “settled fact.” Here is another quote from the academy which reaffirms all three of the rejected amendments:

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities … and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.

The National Academy of Sciences might be thought of like the Supreme Court for science, so what they say matters a lot. But then again, even the U.S. Supreme Court itself has decided that the EPA should have the authority to regulate carbon pollution in the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision.

Notwithstanding the advice of every U.S. science agency and the opinions of virtually every credibly international science organization, the committee voted 34-19 to pass the Upton-Inhofe dirty air bill, H.R. 910, which eliminates the ability of the federal government to regulate planet-warming carbon pollution. The Project on Climate Science summed it up nicely:

Through this antiscience legislation, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is substituting ideology for the intensive, comprehensive, peer-reviewed analysis of thousands of scientists, including the scientists at the EPA.

Comically, as Joe Romm noted yesterday, one of the committee members voting against the amendments John Shimkus (R-IL), cites the Bible as his reason for rejecting climate science. “God said the earth would not be destroyed in a flood.” Another, Michael Burgess (R-TX), cited an online public opinion poll (in and of itself an unscientific way of sampling opinion data) as reason for rejecting the science of global warming. Making matters worse, it turns out the particular poll was targeted by well-known climate science denial website Watt’s Up With That in a campaign to skew the results.

Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll (the scientific kind with random sampling, rather than self-selecting Internet sampling) indicates more than 50 percent of the public believe global warming is happening and is mostly due to human activities. But again, opinions–even scientifically polled public opinions–don’t determine science. Just because 99.99 percent of the world public believed the sun revolved around the earth in the time of Galileo does not mean his theory of heliocentrism was wrong.

So, on the one hand we have virtually every credible government and nongovernmental science organization in the developed world reaffirming the fundamental science behind global warming is sound. On the other hand, you have an online poll that was co-opted by a well-known science denial blog. Who would you believe? Apparently the opinion poll, if you are a Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“The denial of science has taken deep root on the Committee,” said Rep. Waxman (D-CA) in a recent talk he gave at the Center for American Progress. Even more troubling is the amount of money taken by Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans from major polluters with a stake in undermining the scientific consensus about climate change.

Certainly it is the duty of a congressional representative to represent constituents’ opinions. But perhaps the representative needs to draw the line where those views directly contrast with reality. We need our leaders to understand the difference between opinion and science. More importantly, we need them to look past childish debates on scientific subjects about which they have no expertise. Instead they should concentrate on how our government can work to address great challenges science gives us the power to identify.

Sean Pool is Assistant Editor for Science Progress.

Indeed, for the greater part of the last decade, legislative proposals for patent reform have languished as competing industry and trade group interests fought to a standstill. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court and the executive branch have taken up the mantle of reform, producing significant improvement in such areas as standards for evaluating patentability, remedies for patent infringement, and numerous administrative reforms to improve both the timeliness and quality of review.

Yet there is important patent reform that only the legislature can implement. Thus, last week’s 95-5 Senate vote in favor of the America Invents Act represents something of a watershed. Indeed, given the background history of fierce clashes between interest groups, and the everyday difficulties of achieving bipartisan agreement, the Senate action deserves commendation irrespective of what ultimately happens in the House.

There is no question that our patent system needs further improvement. It currently takes at least 34 months on average for the Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, to finalize a patent application. The average wait is even greater (more than 40 months) if one counts the large number of applications that are resubmitted one or more times. As a consequence, a backlog of more than 700,000 patent applications currently awaits review. These long waits create uncertainty for inventors, investors, and entrepreneurs, dampening innovation. What’s more, although the PTO is entirely supported by applicant fees, it does not even possess fee-setting authority. No self-supporting institution that lacks the ability to charge for the costs it incurs can possibly perform efficiently.

The America Invents Act, if taken up by the House of Representatives and signed by the president, would address these problems in several ways. First and most significantly, it would confer fee-setting authority upon the Patent and Trademark Office. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, with fee-setting authority of the sort given in the Senate bill (and a related guarantee that fees won’t be diverted by Congress to other uses, as has happened repeatedly in the past), the PTO could much more readily work to create processing times that were suitable both for applicants and for potential competitors. The PTO could also, if it so desired, use this authority to create incentives for applicants to file well-drafted applications that could be processed in one cycle without having to be resubmitted, thereby further reducing administrative delays.

Another significant (though contested) feature of the legislation is its enactment of a first-to file system. Currently, unlike every other major global economy, the United States operates under a “first-to-invent” system. At least in theory, the U.S. approach therefore accords patent rights to whomever can prove they first invented a product or technology. The operative word is theory, however, as the actual impact of the first-to-invent system is far from clear. So-called interference disputes—that is, the length and expensive administrative proceedings in which first and second patent filers settle who was first to invent—account for only about .01 percent of cases. Meanwhile, the asymmetry between the U.S. system and that of other major economies creates problems both for applicants who file globally and for PTO efforts to reuse the work product of other patent offices.

In response to data regarding the negligible role of interferences, proponents of the status quo (typically small inventors) raise two reasonable points. First, ordinary patent prosecutions, not interferences, are the arena where a first-to-invent system matters. In the prosecution context, the U.S. system allows an applicant to argue that third-party disclosures of invention that arise after the date of invention, but before the date of filing, should not be used to reject the patent application. As a recent study by Dennis Crouch documents, however, attempts by applicants to assert a pre-filing invention date arise in only 0.1 percent of cases. Moreover, small inventors appear to assert pre-filing invention dates “less often and less successfully than large, publicly traded companies.” Thus, at least in the prosecution context, the first-to-invent system appears to disadvantage precisely those small inventors who are lobbying to keep it.

Second, some critics assert that empirical studies of current interference proceedings cannot necessarily predict what would happen in the counterfactual situation of a shift to a first-to-file system. Perhaps in that context, critics of reform argue, large firms that no longer feared an interference challenge would race to the patent office and file applications, including applications based on information appropriated from small inventors. That scenario seems unlikely, however. The current interference system would hardly seem to present much of a barrier to racing activity on the part of large firms. Additionally, the Senate bill bars those who appropriate information from others from using that information to file patents or even to create prior art.

In addition to fee-setting authority and first-to-file language, the Senate bill also contains improved administrative alternatives to costly and inefficient litigation over the validity of issued patents. Although these improvements may not go as far as one might like, they are certainly a step forward.

The incremental improvements driven by the judicial and executive branches in the last few years must be accompanied by legislation that addresses what only the legislature can do. The Senate bill is thus a worthy and necessary endeavor.

Arti K. Rai is the Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law at Duke Law School. From 2009–2010, she served as the administrator for external affairs at the USPTO. This article represents her views only.

The national glove box is already crammed full of road maps for our waterways.

Among the proposals already in the hopper is a congressional bill that would create a new national water commission or, more precisely, the “21st Century Water Commission.” Introduced by Rep. John Linder (R-GA), H.B. 135 moved out of House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Water and Environment in May, and has the support of Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who introduced companion legislation in that chamber.

Linder’s bill would establish a nine-person commission with a $9 million budget and a three-year deadline to assess the nation’s water availability and demands, with a focus on the pressure points of the country in which fast-growing populations are encountering drought and other supply constraints. The legislation explicitly would not create new national water policy, but would provide data, financial incentives, and strategies for stronger and farther-looking state policies. Comparing the initiative to the interstate highway system of the last century, Rep. Linder proclaimed this bill a first step toward “a roadmap that states can use to form their water policy.”

The national glove box is already crammed full of road maps for our waterways. As Steve Malloch of the National Wildlife Federation remarked at a water policy meeting in New Mexico in May, “We’re long on good policy; we’re short on good politics.” What we need is movement on key state and federal policy reforms (see sidebar) to combat the most important factors affecting our nation’s water resources—rapid growth in dry regions and global warming.

Since the last National Water Commission completed its work, culminating in a well-researched and prescient report published in 1973, “Water Policies for the Future,” subsequent gatherings of experts—many focused on the arid West—have produced library shelves full of reports and white papers reaching remarkably consistent conclusions. For a summary of these policy recommendations and an analysis of the most promising areas for reform today, see the Western Progress report, “A New Western Water Agenda.”

Many of the most urgently needed reforms in water policy will take place in state legislatures or at the local (county, municipality) level. But federal policies can encourage improvements through a combination of incentives and regulation.

At a hearing last November, for example, water experts such as the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick and National Wildlife Federation’s David Conrad testified in favor of convening a new national water commission to address a wider array of concerns than is currently captured in mandates of H.B. 135. Responding to these suggestions, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) offered an amendment to H.B. 135 that would increase the size and budget for the commission, and (most importantly) charge it with analysis of the effects of climate change on our water resources.

In a May 12 blog for the American Water Resources Association, Michael “Aquadoc” Campana, praised these amendments as improvements to the commission proposed by H.B. 135. The director of the Institute for Water and Watersheds at Oregon State University and master of the informative and entertaining Waterwired web site, Campana called the bill a “long overdue start” at achieving a national water strategy.

These are all important issues that deserve attention. But the question remains. Do we need a new commission to revisit these questions? Or do we need to look more seriously at how we might mobilize the political will to implement the remarkably consistent menu of ideas that has already emerged from such gatherings of water experts over the past several decades?

At a Natural Resources Law Center conference in Boulder, CO last month, Lewis & Clark Law Professor Jan Neuman reviewed this body of work and concluded that the arsenal of ideas for water policy reform is virtually complete. Rather than pour money and time into a new federal commission, she suggested—with tongue only partly in cheek—that Congress should re-issue the 1973 National Water Commission report with a new chapter on climate change—and then focus its energies on implementation rather than further study.

As a contributing writer to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission’s report (and a participant in a few other smaller initiatives along these lines), I can attest that these processes are cumbersome, political, and cumulative. I find Neuman’s arguments compelling and provocative.

While a new national water commission could undoubtedly shed new light on old water problems—particularly the effects of climate change on limited water resources—progressives must step up early and remain engaged throughout the process to make sure this investment pays off in positive policy reform rather than more shelf art.

Whatever the outcome of this November’s election, it is clear that voters are interested in real change and practical solutions. Let’s start with some movement on water policy—not more talk, but long-overdue reforms to move us toward a national goal of sustainability.

Sarah Bates is the deputy director for policy and outreach at Western Progress, a nonpartisan regional policy institute dedicated to advancing progressive policy solutions for the Rocky Mountain West. She has written extensively on natural resources law and policy.

The Center for American Progress has proposed doubling the research and development funding for key federal agencies to bolster work that improves our country’s health, grows our economy, fuels the development of renewable energy technologies, and supports basic research. This doubling would take place over a 10 year period, with 10 percent annual increases. The FY2008 budget passed by Congress and signed by the President fell short of those 10 percent increases. So how does the money for the Iraq war compare with spending on R&D at these key offices, and how much of that war funding would we need to reallocate to set those offices on a doubling path?

$28,700,000,000: National Institutes of Health R&D budget for 2008, a 0.9 percent increase over 2007.
$2,586,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NIH R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
4.7: The numbers of years the NIH R&D could be funded at its current 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$4,500,000,000: National Science Foundation R&D budget for 2008, a 1.1 percent increase over 2007.
$399,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NSF R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
30: The number of years the NSF R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$4,000,000,000: Department of Energy Office of Science budget for 2008, 4.6 percent increase over 2007.
$166,000,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 DOE Office of Science R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
33.9: The number of years the DOE Office of Science could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$514,000,000: National Institute of Standards and Technology R&D 2008 budget, 4.7 percent increase over 2007.
$23,400,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 NIST R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
263.5: The numbers of years the NIST R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$6,476,400,000: Department of Defense R&D 2008 budget, 0.9 percent increase over 2007.
$72,380,000: Supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 DOD R&D budget to 10 percent increase.
21.9: The number of years the DOD R&D could be funded at 2008 levels with latest Iraq war request.

$3,246,780,000: Total supplemental amount needed to boost FY2008 funding for these five key agencies to 10 percent increases.
2.4: Percentage of the $135,421,191,000 supplemental request this boost would require.

Funding Medical Research

Funding for the NIH has been flat for four years; accounting for inflation, the Institutes have lost 6 percent of their purchasing power during that time.

37,275: Total number of NIH research grants in 2007.

$403,528: Average size of each NIH research grant in 2007.

335,593: Number of additional average-sized NIH grants that Iraq war funding in the supplemental could finance.

Energy

The Center for American Progress has more information how the $600 billion spent since the start of the Iraq war could fund critical energy research.

Bob Dinneen, CEO and President of of the Renewable Fuels Association testified that ethanol production has a very small effect on food prices, and may actual be keeping them down. He told committee members that corn growers heeded the market signal sent by the RFS mandate last year, producing an additional 2.5 billion bushels of corn over the previous year’s yield, of which only 600 million bushels went towards producing ethanol. Thus, he argued, there was actually an increase in available corn.

Dinneen followed up by citing research which shows that only two percent of the world supply of corn is used goes into ethanol production and that only three percent of food price increases was attributable to that production. He said the main driver of increased food prices was the price of oil. Removing the RFS, he said, would only increase the price of energy, driving up food prices even further.

Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association backed up Dinneen’s claim, explaining that the main culprit of increased food prices is the price of oil, which plays a significant role in each part of the food production chain. Tolman cited a recent study suggesting that a $1-per-gallon increase in the price of gas has three times the impact on food prices than a $1-per-bushel increase in the price of corn. He also testified that only 19 cents of each consumer dollar in the United States can be attributed to farm products such as grain, oil seeds, and meat. Labor costs 38 cents, and transportation, packaging, energy, and other costs make up the remaining 43 cents. He cited USDA economist Ephraim Liebtag, who calculates that a 50 percent increase in corn prices would translate to an increase in retail food prices of less than one percent.

Don’t remove the mandates, but don’t increase them either was the recommendation from Scott Faber, Vice President of Federal Affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He acknowledged that many factors are involved in the recent spike, “including increasing global food demand, export and other restrictions, adverse weather in some countries, commodity speculation, and higher energy prices.” He said that the one factor that is under the control of Congress is the package of “mandates and subsidies diverting food into fuel production.” Congress should be mindful, he said, that rising food prices are a significant challenge to the poorest twenty percent of Americans who spend about one-third of their after-tax income on food.

The food price spike has also pushed millions of people around the world in to poverty, he said, forcing food aid programs to ration their supplies. He asked Congress to revisit the mandate schedule; to push harder for second- and third- generation biofuels; and to increase support of international food programs and agricultural development.

Fortunately, there is a sufficient supply of biofuel feedstocks that do not compete with food crops: see “Alternative Cellulosic Biomass By the Numbers.”

Bob Dinneen, CEO and President of the Renewable Fuels Association, defended the RFS, saying that it “makes more sense today then when it was passed.” He argued that the RFS plays a major role in reducing the price of gasoline and U.S. dependence on foreign oil; curtailing greenhouse gas emissions; creating new jobs; and revitalizing rural America.

He claimed that this year’s mandate, if met, will bring GHG emission reductions equivalent to taking 2.5 million cars off the road. He also addressed the recent Searchinger report arguing that biofuel production may actually cause increased GHG emissions. Dinneen cited a response to the study questioning its underlying model and said that more research is needed to address the issue. Searchinger himself has countered such critiques of the study, saying that its conclusions hold regardless of adjustments to the model.

Dinneen also testified that biofuels are also lowering oil prices, citing a recent Merrill Lynch report suggesting world oil prices would be 15 percent higher without the current expansion of biofuel production. He called for greater investment in delivery methods and transportation infrastructure to bring ethanol to where its needed quickly and cheaply.

Charles Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association offered an opposing view, asking Congress to do away with the RFS and instead let the market dictate the integration of alternative (note: not “renewable”) fuels into the transportation fuel mix. He told the hearing audience that the mandates not only distort the market, but stifle competition and innovation.

He took issue with Dinneen’s claim of lower gas prices from the introduction of biofuels, saying that adding ethanol to fuel does not actually translate into cost savings at the pump. Because current biofuels have less energy content then gasoline, cars end up requiring more fuel, which offsets lower prices he said. To solidify his claim, Drevna cited a report which found that E85 ethanol cost eighty cents more per gallon then gasoline when its price was adjusted for its lower combustion efficiency.

Drevna also disagreed with Dinneen that biofuels are reducing the cost of gasoline because ethanol production is subsidized, offering the appearance of lower prices. But he failed to note that the government has been very generous in supporting oil production in recent years. As Sam Davis and Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress point out, in 2004 and 2005, big oil companies received tax breaks worth over $17 billion over the next decade. This assistance, they also say, “continues even as BP, ConocoPhillips, and Shell just posted record first quarter 2008 profits—a combined total of $20.8 billion.”

If the ethanol subsidy is removed, Drevna argued, ethanol would be uneconomical in comparison to gasoline on a thermal energy scale. He also claimed that the U.S. lacks the necessary infrastructure to meet the mandates, leaving refiners to unfairly pay the price of penalties imposed by Congress. He asked committee members to do away with the current tariff on imported ethanol to afford flexibility to refiners trying to meet these increased RFS mandates.

Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Team expressed concern that the funding set aside for EHS research is not enough to fill “information gaps” when it comes to the potential human risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. According to a GAO report released in conjunction with the hearing, only $38 million—or three percent of the NNI budget—went towards EHS, but that figure is likely overstated because of ambiguous reporting standards used by researchers. Robinson called for a better system to keep track of EHS spending. Committee members said they will revisit the EHS budget during the authorization process.

The subcommittee also invited outside experts from industry and the health sectors to explain their respective concerns about the NNI.

David Rejeski, Director of the Foresight and Governance Project and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, used a tube of Korean toothpaste laden with silver nanoparticles as a prop during his testimony, highlighting the fact that little is known about health risks associated with nanotechnology. Rejeski believes the U.S. oversight system is failing to test for possible risks just as more nanoproducts are hitting the market. He said that many nanotech companies are asking for federal guidance or regulations on EHS issues so they can press ahead with commercialization without fear of retroactive federal intervention. For the NNI reauthorization bill, Rejeski recommended an external advisory board for better transparency; a comprehensive strategy for the Initiative; and efforts to improve public awareness, so as not to hinder commercialization.

Committee members were mostly receptive to the recommendations of witnesses. They echoed many of the same concerns, calling for improved EHS spending and tracking; increased spending in nanotechnology research for renewable energy and fuel production; improving federal standards; and highlighting the need for a positive public awareness campaign to avoid a backlash similar to that suffered by genetically modified foods.

Image: NASA

According to the National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship, the Innovation Tax Credit Act (H.R. 5681) takes the five different tax credits and simplifies them into one Alternative Simplified Credit, increasing the total credit from the current 16 percent to 20 percent by 2009. Since its introduction in 1981, Congress has renewed the current R&D tax credit 12 times, stifling future investment in R&D because of constant uncertainty about its future. The bill would eliminate this problem by making the credit permanent.

The R&D tax credit is an engine of economic growth, according to studies showing a two-to-one return on investment through the tax credit. The credit can also attract and maintain research investment in the U.S. when other countries may offer attractive research incentives.

Any policy that spurs private sector investment in innovation is a good one, as Science Progress contributors have argued previously. In “The Flashing Light on America’s Dashboard,” Tom Kalil recommends making the R&D tax credit permanent. In “Science and Technology Is the Answer,” Robert Atkinson explains how the U.S., which once had the most generous R&D tax credit in the world, now sits in 16th place today. To stop the bleeding, he suggests doubling the regular credit and the Alternative Simplified Credit.

The bill, introduced on April 2, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee for further consideration.

Due to mounting pressure from tech companies calling for an increase in visas for skilled workers, and with studies finding less foreign graduates choosing to stay in the U.S., DHS called the shortage of H-1B visas an “emergency” and introduced a new rule allowing students to stay an additional seventeen months in the country for “Optional Practical Training,” up from the previous twelve.

The new rule may help those like Mohammad Sajid, a researchers profiled by The Scientist, who was barred reentry into the U.S. twice and is now moving his research on anti-malarial drugs overseas. But it is only one step in fixing a outdated and counterproductive immigration policy. Science Progress advisory board member Tom Kalil has recommended the creation of “fast-track” employment-based visas for foreign students who receive advanced technical degrees from U.S. universities.

The bill proposes a combination of tax incentives, grants, loans, and supports for current federal development programs to spur the growth of widely available and affordable Internet in rural America.

Policy that helps spread the benefits of high-speed communications infrastructure to all citizens is a good thing. In his report, “Ubiquity Requires Redundancy,” Science Progress advisory board member Mark Lloyd explained how Internet connectivity in rural areas is a critical component of homeland security and natural disaster response. Broadband can also improve rural healthcare, education, and economies, argues Nancy Scola, who examines successful programs in Virginia in her article Science Progress, “Broadband Done Right.”

Subcommittee Chairman David Wu (D-OR) chastised the request for falling short of the appropriations mandated for NIST in the COMPETES Act and the American Competitiveness Initiative. He pointed out that NIST was the only agency highlighted in the COMPETES Act that received less funding in 2009 then in the previous year. Rep. Vernon Elhers (R-MI) praised NIST for its work and hoped Congress would reinstate both the TIP and MEP programs.

Dr. Turner tried to defend the MEP and TIP cuts, saying the agency decision proved difficult, but that it had to prioritize its core programs under tight budgetary restrictions. Chairman Wu disagreed, saying previous laws both prioritized and provided the appropriate funding for the two beleaguered programs. Dr. Turner went on to explain the agency’s future plans, which include starting five new programs in 2009 and focusing on nanotechnology, quantum computing, biosciences, and cybersecurity.

Dr. James Serum, Chairman of NIST’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, praised the high-quality work of the agency, but felt it was dramatically underfunded. He advised the agency to focus on developing standards to measure the broadband capabilities and availability in the U.S. (Current broadband measurements, Mark Lloyd argued in a previous column, are grossly inadequate.)

Dr. Peter Fiske, Vice President for Research and Development at PAX Scientific, spoke about his startup company, which was able to bridge the so called “valley of death” by bringing new technology out of the lab and into marketplace with the assistance of TIP. The program provides Federal funds to small businesses for early-stage investments to accelerate the development of high risk, high reward technologies. Dr. Fiske mentioned how venture capitalists shy away from cutting-edge technology in its early stages and that Federal programs help to fill the gap. According to Dr. Fiske, without the support of TIP, which he called the best Federal agency to support technology commercialization, his company would never have gotten off the ground.

Michael Coast, President of Michigan’s Manufacturing Technology Center, spoke in support of the MEP program. The program helps small and medium-sized manufacturers modernize their operations and improve competitiveness. Manufacturers who received support from MEP created 52,000 jobs and saved $1.1 billion in 2006, he said during his testimony.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced a new green energy initiative to install solar panels on the city’s buildings, telling the crowd atop a Los Angeles Convention Center parking garage, “Clean energy is not a luxury: its a necessity.” The project, headed up by the city’s Department of Water and Power, hopes to create 400 union jobs over the next three years while moving toward the state’s goal of generating 280 megawatts of solar power (currently the DWP is generating only 10.5 megawatts of solar power). The DWP will have $270 million over the next nine years for installing solar panels, issuing rebates to companies that install panels, and starting public/private partnerships to implement solar technology.

Plan on constructing a building in Los Angeles? Then get out your green building checklist, as two City Council committees voted in favor of creating some of the strictest green building ordinances in the nation. The ordinance, which had broad support from some of the area’s largest developers, the L.A. Business Council, trade unions, and environmental groups, would require any privately built projects over 50,000 square feet to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standard developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, a non-profit group. Brad Cox, Chairman of the L.A. Business Council, told council committees that “building green is good for business, building green is good for developers and building green is good for the city of Los Angeles.” According to studies, the average green building uses 36 percent less energy, 40 percent less water, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, numbers that can help the city fulfill its pledge to bring its carbon emissions to 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

A proposed cap-and-trade system for California is facing strong opposition from low-income community and environmental justice groups who claim the program would allow big polluters, usually located by poor neighborhoods, to “buy their way out” of reducing emissions. “Cap and trade is a charade to continue business as usual,” Angela Meszaros told the LA Times. Meszaros is co-chair of the Environmental Justice Advisory Committee created by California’s Air Resources Board to advise the state on avoiding disproportionate impacts on low-income communities as it tries to reduced greenhouse gas emissions under a 2006 global warming law. Instead of cap and trade, environmental justice groups suggested a carbon fee on polluters. “This problem is too big and complicated to rule any technique off the table,” said Mary Nichols, chairman of the air board, whose agency will examine all the various systems from cap and trade to fees.

Image: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; Credit: flickr.com/ericrichardson

But when I sought recently to check up on the status of the ongoing quest to bring OTA back, I found I had been seriously wrong in my initial assumptions. While the OTA may have died on the altar of partisan ideology in 1995, its revival today seems to be inhibited by a bipartisan failure to understand why it’s needed.

And the need for OTA has only become more apparent, not less, over time, as policymakers see more and more that many political issues have inescapable technical components.

Originally created in 1972, OTA became world-renowned for its provision of user-friendly scientific advice to members of Congress, and served as a model for the design of science advisory mechanisms in many European parliaments. The OTA’s board of congressional overseers was bipartisan, yet the office nevertheless made conservative enemies with some of its reports. In particular, it was said to have literally shot down Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” dream during the 1980s with a series of reports underscoring the program’s technical infeasibility and strategic silliness.

Meanwhile, because OTA worked most directly for its board of senior legislators, rather than for every elected representative, few incoming freshmen members of Congress in 1994 had any way of understanding its value. And so, with the Gingrich-led conservatives vowing to cut legislative expenses as one plank of the “Contract With America,” it died in a partisan vote in 1995.

But a shift of political wind seemed to suggest grounds for hope in 2006: With the end of conservative control of Congress, surely progressives would recognize the value of the office and restore its funding. After all, it’s not like OTA costs very much in the grand scheme of things—the bill was $ 21.9 million per year as of 1995. And the need for OTA has only become more apparent, not less, over time, as policymakers see more and more that many political issues have inescapable technical components.

Finally, after years of thought on the subject, science policy watchers generally seem to agree that while Congress has many existing research branches—the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, as well as the option to commission reports from the National Academy of Sciences—OTA nevertheless filled a critical niche with its intensive, policy-relevant examination of science issues specifically in the service of Congress. So surely, it had to come back eventually. Right?

We were all mistaken. Over the summer, you see, a bipartisan group of legislators launched an effort to restart funding for OTA through the appropriate channel: the legislative branch’s appropriations bill. But although $2.5 million was ultimately allocated to the Government Accountability Office for technology assessment work, OTA did not emerge reborn from the appropriations process this year. The move left many OTA advocates miffed—and caused them to rethink some of their assumptions.

Many members of Congress don’t even see the scientific component to many policy issues.

It now seems clear that this isn’t simply an ideological issue; some high-level progressives, as well as conservatives, apparently fail to appreciate OTA’s value. Indeed, explains Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist and longtime champion of restoring OTA, some representatives seem to think that refunding OTA is simply tantamount to giving a gift to scientists. “Someone actually said to me this year, when OTA was in and then taken out of the appropriations, they said, ‘Well, we’ve already done some things for scientists this year.’ And I said, ‘Oh, boy, now I understand, and now I understand the need for OTA,’” says Rep. Holt.

As a physicist himself, Holt is probably the last member of Congress who really needs a tool like the Office of Technology Assessment. He already knows how to think about the scientific underpinnings of policy issues such as transportation regulation and election reform. But then, he’s the exception. And that’s precisely the point.

Many members of Congress don’t even see the scientific component to many policy issues. “I use voting as an example,” Holt explains. “Not a single one of my colleagues really understood the problem that was presented by unverifiable voting machines. Scientists or engineers would get that immediately. But Congress didn’t.”

Indeed, too often members of Congress think that science gets dealt with in the House Science and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA, NSF, and other science agencies. Or else, they figure they’ll hear enough about science just by osmosis when it comes to high profile topics like global warming and embryonic stem cell research.

But in truth, science pops up again and again across a wide diversity of political issues, including many unexpected ones, which is why the entire Congress needs the service of an agency specially suited to analyze issues with that in mind, as well as to look forward to future science-related quandaries on the horizon.

And so the defenders of OTA must return to the drawing board—and make the case that congressional science advice is good for everyone and good for democracy, not just something that science, as a special interest group, wants to see happen.

In the end, perhaps that’s a good thing. The fundamental problem of science today, it could be argued, lies in its failure to connect to the rest of society, to politics, to the arts, to the humanities. If scientists and policymakers can make the case for OTA in universal terms that resonate even for members of Congress with little appreciation of science policy issues, then the office can return on a firmer footing than ever before.

Chris Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed magazine and author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

Even readers familiar with the work of Congress might respond to the last item with a blank look of nonrecognition. The big story in innovation legislation this year has been the lack of it. Pending patent reform legislation is still pending and, indeed, has been pending for several years.

Largely absent from the debate is any group that looks at the whole innovation ecosystem, with a view toward advancing overall social welfare.

In the case of the proposed Patent Reform Act of 2007, various interest groups are fighting vigorously over specific aspects of the bill, and their interests are in some cases mutually exclusive. For life sciences firms, innovation revolves around highly patent-dependent work such as drug development. In contrast, for large information technology firms, innovation often requires freedom from patent restrictions, and the patent thickets and trolls that come with them, in order for firms to merge various technologies into newly productive combinations. Each interest group ignores legitimate claims on the other side. Brokering a compromise will not be easy.

Some might suggest that the answer is industry-specific policy. Such an approach has been the norm in other realms of innovation regulation. Most notably, telecommunications regulation has been based on different regulatory regimes for different technologies. Such legal balkanization is widely seen as a mistake, as it sets in stone categorizations that may not be useful in the future and also leads to major battles over the classification of technologies into one category or another (for example, is cable modem service “telecommunications” as well as Internet service?). Moreover, it has enabled powerful interest groups within a given industry to exercise enormous influence in the specific regulatory field they inhabit—power that would be dissipated if the field were defined more broadly.

There is an even bigger problem, however. Largely absent from the debate is any group that looks at the whole innovation ecosystem, with a view toward advancing overall social welfare. This concern about legislation is not new, of course. At least since Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action, commentators have noted the tendency for legislation to confer concentrated benefits on well-organized interests, reflecting their superior organizing ability and higher stakes. And some commentators would argue that this battle among interested groups should not trouble us when the groups serve as proxies—usually not intentionally—for the public interest. A legislative battle between, say, steel producers and steel purchasers might roughly reflect the public interest by balancing the interests of steelworkers versus consumers of steel products.

A major problem for legislative battles involving innovation is that future industries and innovators do not have a seat at the lobbying table, as they exist only in nascent form or do not exist at all. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, current versions of the patent reform bill make little if any provision for how we should think about patent policy going forward. A modest effort in that direction—a provision for conferring authority on the Patent and Trademark Office to address such issues as they emerge—was dropped, apparently because no constituency was lobbying for it and because existing constituencies were fearful of what the PTO might do with this additional power.

We do not necessarily endorse conferring greater authority on the PTO. As currently constituted, the PTO lacks economic expertise. More generally, agency decisionmaking is often subject to the same narrow interest group pressures as Congress. But the fact that no powerful group lobbies for a mechanism to address forward-looking questions of innovation policy is a real problem.

The more clear it is who the winners and losers will be, the more intense the lobbying and the more danger of legislation emerging that caters only to the interests of powerful incumbent interests.

So the big question with respect to innovation legislation is how the process can make room for future-oriented policy. And this brings us back to the America COMPETES Act. That Act, which passed with great dispatch, builds on an important report by the National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The Act makes several sensible, forward-looking recommendations. First, it calls for a National Academies study “to identify, and to review methods to mitigate, new forms of risk for businesses beyond conventional operational and financial risk that affect the ability to innovate” [section 1002(a)]. Second, it calls for a “President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness” that will identify mechanisms by which executive agencies, and the federal government more generally, can foster innovation. This Council will also make recommendations for strengthening the innovation and competitiveness capabilities of state governments, academia, and the private sector [section 1006]. Third, the Act directs the new Council to work with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop a process for using metrics “to assess the impact of existing and proposed policies and rules that affect innovation capabilities in the United States.”

What can we learn from the America Competes Act? Part of the answer involves how it operates. The America Competes Act has only a few small “winners”—federal agencies that receive modest increases in funding. More importantly, it has no obvious losers. Thus a group of public-spirited legislators was able to push the Act through. To put the point differently, the America Competes Act is written at a higher level of generality than the Patent Reform Act of 2007. The more clear it is who the winners and losers will be, the more intense the lobbying and the more danger of legislation emerging that caters only to the interests of powerful incumbent interests.

It is of course possible, perhaps even likely, that subsequent recommendations made by the President’s Council will create winners and losers. But it is also possible that Congress has set the wheels in motion for a future-oriented innovation policy and has built up momentum that existing interest groups cannot overcome. In other words, the America Competes Act may have helped to overcome the imbalance of lobbying clout against future innovators. The National Academies report has now essentially been enacted, and Congress is asking for more. When those recommendations come, they will, in effect, constitute a voice for future innovation. There is no guarantee that the voice will be implemented in a law. But at least it will be heard. There will be a place at the table for the future. And that is probably the most we can expect.

Stuart Benjamin and Arti Rai are professors at the Duke University School of Law.

Tuesday

House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment: “Renewable Energy and the Global Environment.” 2 p.m.

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property: “Stifling or Stimulating – The Role of Gene Patents in Research and Genetic Testing.” 2 p.m.

House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: “Research to Improve Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation: Technologies and Practices.” 2 p.m.

Wednesday

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet: “The Status of the Digital Television Transition – Part 3.” 9:30 a.m.

House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education: “Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative.” 10 a.m.

House Science and Technology Committee: “Aviation Safety: Can NASA Do More to Protect the Public?” 1 p.m.

Thursday

House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement: “Too Many Cooks” Coordinating Federal and State Health IT.” 2 p.m.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee: “Protecting the U.S. From Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Reinvesting in Control and New Tools Research.” 10 a.m.

Cures Without Cloning, a Missouri group that opposes embryonic stem cell research, is trying to overturn the results of last year’s ballot initiative that amended the Missouri state constitution to protect stem cell research in the state. The CAP Bioethics Initiative posted an update last week. Here’s a roundup of the latest:

The Columbia Tribune reports on CWC’s dismal efforts at raising funds. The group currently has “$2,020 in cash contributions and $12,105 in debt.” The pro-embryonic stem cell research group, Coalition for Lifesaving Cures raised $587,656 in September.

With regard to the Missouri Secretary of State’s wording of the ballot question, the Kansas City Star has no problem with it, maintaining that, “[i]t is wrong to equate creating a ball of about 300 cells in a lab dish to the cloning of a human being in a woman’s uterus.”

Both CWC and CLC have aired their grievances with the ballot language by filing lawsuits. According to the Columbia Tribune, CWC contends that the ballot language is inaccurate, misleading, biased, and infringes on their free speech rights. CLC claims that the title of the summary, “The Missouri Cures Without Cloning Initiative,” is unnecessary because it amounts to a second summary. CLC says that instead of claiming the initiative will have a “significant negative fiscal impact,” the initiative should have the actual amounts it would cost the state and local governments, which are at least $200 million and $25 million respectively. The Kansas City Business Journal has additional details on the financial impact of the ballot and how it factors into the lawsuits.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan supports embryonic stem cells, but still finds the ballot language misleading.

David Goldston gave a recent talk at the University of Connecticut on the political polarization of scientific evidence, the difference between science policy debates and debates over scientific evidence, and the proper role for scientists to take if they want to inform politicians accurately, honestly, and effectively. Former Staff Director of the House Committee on Science and Technology under Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Goldston appeared today on WAMU’s Kojo Nnamdi Show.

Time magazine has a powerful and thoughtful first-person account of erasing a patient’s bad memory. This is not about medications and therapies that may come about in the future or are currently under development. This is about a real case of immediate memory erasure that happened a number of years ago. The substance employed is called propofol and its usage raises issues about the ethics of informed consent and the nature of personhood vs brain chemistry.

A provision in the Labor-HHS-Education bill (H.R.3043/S.1710) before the Senate today will change the NIH public access policy and require that researchers publish all peer-reviewed articles produced from research conducted with NIH funds in open access journals. The House version of the bill requires that the NIH provide access to the articles within 12 months of their appearance in refereed journals. Under the current system, the NIH simply “requests and strongly encourages” making final peer-reviewed manuscripts publicly available.

Unfortunately, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), introduced two ammendments Friday that would derail open access by placing decisions about making peer-reviewed research public in the hands of for-profit publishers, rather than in the hands of scientists. This would limit the ability of the public and other researchers to benefit from taxpayer-funded research.

Inhofe’s proposed changes to the legislation would limit access to scientific work conducted in the service of the common good in order to protect the out-dated business model of some scientific publishers. Scientific progress requires access to shared knowledge, and the new NIH rules would be a strong mandate for knowledge that empowers scientists and the public alike.

For more on the issue:

Heather Morrison explains that the NIH already underwrites publications costs; while full and immediate open access would be in the public interest, the 12-month open access policy is a reasonable compromise (Via A Blog Around the Clock).

The Scientist: the NIH is the world’s largest biomed funder, and open access is a “natural next step.”

Scientific American ran a backgrounder on the issue in January.