^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AWG E-MAIL NEWS 2004-21
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CONTENTS
1) GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 11-24-04
2) GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM ACTION ALERT: 11-11-04
3) AAAS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY FELLOWSHIPS: 2005-
2006
4) POSITION OPENINGS
2004-064 Wright State University - Environmental Sciences Ph.D.
Program and Fellowships
2004-067 Kansas State University - Earth Science Educator
2004-091 Georgia Southern University - Temporary Position in
Coastal Geology
2004-119 University of Maryland, College Park - Department of
Geology
2004-120 Boise State University - Tenure Track Appointment
5) CONTACT INFORMATION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this issue of E-mail News
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1) GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM SPECIAL UPDATE: 11-24-04
*** Congress Passes Spending Bill, Comments on NIH Open Access Model
***
In A Nutshell: When the House of Representatives approved the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2005 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education in September, the appropriations committee also issued a
report. Therein, members expressed support for a proposal by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) to make the complete text of articles
and supplemental materials generated by NIH-funded research freely and
continuously available on PubMed Central (PMC), an online storehouse of
life science articles, six months after the date of publication. The
Senate did not address this issue in their version of NIH's spending
plan. As such, the House and Senate needed to work out their differences
on this issue prior to passing the final FY05 budget for NIH. Congress
approved H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2005, on
Saturday, November 20. Buried in the depths of this monumental piece
of legislation were Congress' comments about the NIH open access m
odel.
The report, H. Rept. 108-792, stated the following:
"The conferees are aware of the draft NIH policy on increasing public
access to NIH-funded research. Under this policy, NIH would request
investigators to voluntarily submit electronically the final, peer
reviewed author's copy of their scientific manuscripts; six months after the
publisher's date of publication, NIH would make this copy publicly
available through PubMed Central. The policy is intended to help ensure the
permanent preservation of NIH-funded research and make it more readily
accessible to scientists, physicians, and the public. The conferees
note that the comment period for the draft policy ended November 16th;
NIH is directed to give full and fair consideration to all comments
before publishing its final policy. The conferees request NIH to provide
the estimated costs of implementing this policy each year in its annual
Justification of Estimates to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. In addition, the conferees direct NIH to continue to work w
ith the publishers of scientific journals to maintain the integrity of
the peer review system."
Some believe that the inclusion of this language indicates the
appropriators' interest in becoming more involved with the proposal,
understanding of potential cost implications, and interest in seeing the
involvement of publishers of scientific journals. Others believe that it
simply reaffirms Congress and the administration's intention to create an
open-access archive of NIH-funded research.
Open access is an idea coming to fruition. With the report language,
Congress directed NIH to give "full and fair consideration to all
comments" and to publish a final policy. NIH will do so without ever
answering the tough questions about the impact this model would have on
scientists, nonprofit scientific publishers, consumers, the peer-review
process, or the science on the record in a public forum.
Scientists within our profession need to remain engaged in this issue.
We appreciate every individual and organization that provided comments
to NIH and shared them with their congressional representatives and
senators.
Please follow up with your congressional representatives during the
holidays and ask them to schedule hearings on this issue early next year.
AGI will continue to monitor this issue and provide you with updates
about public access to federally funded scientific research. Log on to
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/public_access.html for the latest
information.
Special update prepared by Emily Lehr Wallace, AGI Government Affairs
Program
Sources: Thomas Legislative database.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
2) GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM ACTION ALERT: 11-11-04
*** Public Access to Federally Funded Scientific Research ***
In A Nutshell: AGI's Member Society Council met on Monday, November
8th in Denver, CO in conjunction with the Geological Society of America's
Annual Meeting. The sole topic of discussion at the meeting was public
access to federally funded scientific research. At the conclusion of
this dialogue, member society representatives asked for additional
background and talking points so that members of their societies could
comment on the open access model being proposed by the National Institutes
of Health (NIH). This action alert contains background information,
talking points, instructions on how to comment on the NIH model and letter
templates to share your thoughts with your Representatives, Senators
and key congressional committee Chairmen.
The House of Representatives has approved the FY05 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. Accompanying this bill
was a report issued by the subcommittee. Traditionally, reports that
accompany appropriations bills are non-binding because they are not part
of the bill and do not become law; however, most agencies pay very
close attention to their contents. This year's FY05 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education report contained language about PubMed
Central, an online storehouse of life science, specifically medical science,
articles maintained by the National Library of Medicine (NLM).
First, the Committee praised PubMed Central saying:
"The Committee commends NLM for its leadership in developing PubMed
Central, an electronic online repository for life science articles.
Because of the high level of expertise health information specialists have
in the organization, collection, and dissemination of medical
information, the Committee believes that health sciences librarians have a key
role to play in the further development of PubMed Central. The Committee
encourages NLM to work with the medical library community regarding
issues related to copyright, fair use, peer-review and classification of
information on PubMed Central."
The Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee
extended their remarks about PubMed Central with the following:
"The Committee is very concerned that there is insufficient public
access to reports and data resulting from NIH-funded research. This
situation, which has been exacerbated by the dramatic rise in scientific
journal subscription prices, is contrary to the best interests of the U.S.
taxpayers who paid for this research. The Committee is aware of a
proposal to make the complete text of articles and supplemental materials
generated by NIH-funded research available on PubMed Central (PMC), the
digital library maintained by the National Library of Medicine (NLM).
The Committee supports this proposal and recommends that NIH develop a
policy, to apply from FY 2005 forward, requiring that a complete
electronic copy of any manuscript reporting work supported by NIH grants or
contracts be provided to PMC upon acceptance of the manuscript for
publication in any scientific journal listed in the NLM's PubMed directory.
Under this proposal, NLM would commence making these reports, toge
ther with supplemental materials, freely and continuously available six
months after publication, or immediately in cases in which some or all
of the publication costs are paid with NIH grant funds. For this
purpose, `publication costs' would include fees charged by a publisher, such
as color and page charges, or fees for digital distribution. NIH is
instructed to submit a report to the Committee by December 1, 2004 about
how it intends to implement this policy, including how it will ensure
the reservation of rights by the NIH grantee, if required, to permit
placement of the article in PMC and to allow appropriate public uses of
this literature."
The Senate's version of the bill and the accompanying report, which
were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 15th,
contained no such language. Once the Senate approves their version of
the funding bill, the House and Senate versions will go to a conference
committee. There, the differences between the two bills will be ironed
out so the House and Senate can pass, and the President can sign, one
bill into law.
Typically, the language in the House report and the Senate report are
free standing. Conference Committees sometimes issue their own report
but it usually only addresses funding issues hashed out during the
conference. The open access issue is not a funding issue at this time; it
is a policy issue that may, or may not, rise to the attention of the
conferees.
In the meantime, NIH published a notice of intent and request for
comments in the Federal Register on September 17th. It is available online
by going to
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html.
The notice announces NIH's plans to enhance public access to NIH
health-related research information. NIH proposes to have all grantees and
supported Principal Investigators provide the NIH with electronic copies
of final manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, modified and readied
for publication. According to the notice in the Federal Register, NIH
will archive these manuscripts in PubMed Central and each will be made
freely available to the public six months after publication. If the
publisher agrees, the manuscript may be made freely available sooner.
"Open Access" as being established by an "NIH model"
Congress is endorsing and the NIH is moving forward with a very
specific model for implementation of open access; however, questions still
linger.
*** The public already has access to journals and peer-reviewed
literature through public libraries and document delivery. These services are
available for a nominal fee within several days. This model mandates
more than that - it demands free home, electronic access for federally
funded scientific research. Some journals already have that capability
but others do not and moving into electronic dissemination of
manuscripts would be a substantial financial expense. Journals not available
online are likely to lose their subscribers because the information would
be freely available online within six months of publication. Once
these journals lose their subscription base, the funding mechanisms for
continued publishing, peer review, and editing will be negatively
impacted, putting the fundamental quality of science in this country in
question. What will happen if the NIH model is implemented? What if there
isn't a publisher willing to do the peer review and provide the fin
al manuscript?
*** In requiring a "final manuscript" to be submitted to a central
repository, the NIH model still expects that the peer review process will
remain intact and continue to provide the same high-quality check and
review. How will this model affect peer review? This is a central
question. If final manuscripts are made available online six months after
publication, most publishers expect their subscription revenues to fall.
In order to make up for budgetary shortfalls and to avoid running a
deficit, many publishers may need to implement page charges or lean more
heavily on page charges than they have in the past. If journals need
authors to publish their research in order to continue to function, there
can easily be degradation in the peer review process as journals need
to compete for authors on price and service commitments.
*** Under the NIH proposal, PubMed Central would make these final
manuscripts freely and continuously available. Free is a misnomer because
the government must pay for this repository and keep it operational in
perpetuity. There are vastly different estimates of how much this would
cost the government. There is also the concern that in a difficult
budget year, funding for PubMed Central would be cut. If that were to
happen, what would happen to the manuscripts about to be published? What
would happen to the archive? It has always been a central mission of
the professional and scholarly societies publishing journals to maintain
the archive central to our profession. To what level does this model
not make PubMed Central simply a "stealth" government run journal of
sponsored research? Is it healthy for science that the funder has such a
substantial level of influence over what and how science is published?
Even though the NIH proposal simply "requests" that the final ma
nuscript be submitted to PubMed Central, will that submittal be a
requirement in order to apply for, and receive, future federal funding for
research? Will the federal government be in charge not only of who gets
funding, but who publishes which research? Couldn't this model serve
those who want to use science in order to advance political positions?
*** Congress has requested that NIH report back to them by December 1st
with a plan for implementation. This plan must include how NIH will
"ensure the reservation of rights by the NIH grantee". What will this
mean for NIH, the publisher, the grantee, other interested entities?
*** Those commenting on this plan, with concerns or with kudos, are
encouraged to use this opportunity to communicate the value of the
geoscience profession to policymakers. Not-for-profit publishers exist to
fund the activities of the professional and scientific society and many
professionals belong to these societies in order to subscribe to these
publications at a reduced rate. Profits generated by journals are rolled
back into the profession through foundations, fellowships, internships,
educational and outreach programs as well as the cultivation of an
archive that not only houses past research but informs the research yet to
be investigated.
*** How will this NIH model affect libraries and universities? Is it
all positive? University libraries and research libraries are required
to have a certain number of journals in their collections in order to
be accredited. How will these accreditation criteria change if the NIH
model goes into effect?
*** Congress' endorsement and mandate of one specific model for the
dissemination of this information without any public discourse or debate
is irregular. Typically, Congress would identify a problem, hold
hearings and formulate a solution involving (and hopefully satisfying) all
stakeholders. In this instance, there has been no public debate or
discourse outside of the sound byte war wherein everything 'open access' is
a good thing. Further, it is improper for the committees that decide
funding for agencies to include policy decisions in funding bills. This
issue should be vetted in an open forum, with debate and an effort
toward consensus building between the stakeholders.
The NIH is encouraging persons, groups and organizations to comment on
its intentions and proposal by logging onto
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm. Alternately,
comments may be e-mailed to PublicAccess@nih.gov or sent via U.S.
postal mail to:
NIH Public Access Comments
National Institutes of Health
Office of Extramural Research
6705 Rockledge Drive
Room 350
Bethesda, MD 20892-7963
Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2004.
People and/or organizations that comment on NIH's proposal are also
encouraged to engage your Congressman (provide him or her with a copy of
your comments) and the appropriate Committee Chairmen on this issue.
Specifically, you are encouraged to contact the following:
The Honorable Ralph Regula, Chairman
The Honorable David Obey, Ranking Member House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
2358 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: (202) 225-3509
*This committee oversees funding for the NIH and included the language
regarding PubMed Central in the report accompanying the FY05
appropriations bill for that agency.
The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman
The Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
184 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-2321
*This committee oversees funding for the NIH but has been silent on the
PubMed Central model proposed by the House. This could be an issue for
a conference committee when they meet with the House to iron out the
differences in funding for FY05.
The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Member House Energy and Commerce
Committee
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Fax: (202) 225-1919
*This committee sets policy for NIH and will be responsible for NIH
reauthorization hearings in 2005.
The Honorable Judd Gregg, Chairman
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Member Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-5044
*This committee sets policy for NIH and will be responsible for NIH
reauthorization hearings in 2005.
The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman The Honorable Bart Gordon,
Ranking Member House Science Committee 2320 Rayburn House Office
Building Washington, DC 20515
Fax: (202) 226-0113
*The House Science Committee does not have any oversight of the NIH,
but does have oversight of NSF, EPA and NASA, among others. Their staff
has been briefed on this issue by many interested parties. We would
like to encourage them to hold hearings on this issue early next year.
Everyone sharing their comments with their Congressman or Senator as
well as with those listed above are encouraged to FAX their letters and
statements due to the unreliability of the US mail reaching these
offices in time. New mail procedures were instituted on Capitol Hill
following the anthrax attacks two years ago. These procedures have slowed
down the mail. This is a timely issue; please communicate to these
policymakers and decision makers in the most expeditious medium available.
*******************
The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman
The Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
184 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin:
The scientific community recently learned of both Administration and
Congressionally-directed efforts to implement a government mandated open
access policy to federally funded scientific research. On September
17, 2004 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a plan in the
Federal Register to develop and implement a distribution center for all
federally-funded scientific research articles. This comes on the heels
of the House of Representatives approval of the FY05 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. The report
accompanying that bill praised NIH's electronic repository, PubMed Central, for
providing public access to life-science articles. It also strongly
encouraged taking the project a step further: requiring all reports and
data resulting from research funded by NIH to be available on PubMed
Central. The report that accompanied the Senate's version of this bill
was silent on this issue.
While my colleagues and I appreciate that your role in the annual
appropriations process is to make funding decisions relative to the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, among others, an
important policy issue must be considered when you meet with the House
Committee to decide the final funding amounts for FY05.
Both the Congress and Administration appear to be racing toward a
solution with uncharacteristic speed for what amounts to an undefined
problem. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, head of the NIH, told a group of stakeholders
in a July meeting that open access was necessary for NIH's internal
management of grants, is key to patient access and will help scientists who
are currently being hindered because they cannot open access each
other's research. Members of Congress and their staff point to the soaring
cost of journals as the problem quickly followed with a nod to patient
access.
If the problem is indeed one of needing to better manage the grants
within NIH, then there is no need for the publication-ready journal
articles to be freely accessible on the Internet. Federal grantees are
already required to provide their funding agency with final reports and
copies of research papers or citations. This proposed policy would not
necessarily resolve internal NIH management challenges. Moreover, I would
be hard pressed to name a publisher opposed to providing NIH a copy of
an article for their internal record keeping purposes.
The NIH has not been able to provide data that support their assertion
that a large number of individuals and researchers are unable to access
current scientific literature. The publishing community has already
come together through Project Inform and backed a system wherein patients
who register with the appropriate "gate keepers," such as the American
Cancer Society, could have free and open access to their journals.
This solution to the patient access problem has not been sufficiently
explored by your committee or any committee.
Despite the lack of data demonstrating a need for new models of public
access, NIH intends to require that all final manuscripts produced with
any support from NIH be made freely available to anyone six months
after publication. This means that scientific papers will have already
gone through the peer review process, been edited, and properly laid out
for publication with color charts and graphs. In short, the scientific
publisher will have already ensured that the science is valid and made
the manuscript easy-to-read - journals will have already provided their
value-added services and made substantial financial investments in this
process. There is no indication that a six month lag time would be
sufficient to retain subscriptions from libraries and individuals. NIH is
threatening the continued vitality of not-for-profit scientific
journals and thereby the scholarly societies that provide the peer-review and
editorial services. Without these, the quality of U.S. research
and resulting publications would suffer, yet they cannot be provided
for free.
The NIH open access plan has not been properly vetted within the
Administration or Congress. It will set a precedent within the federal
scientific community and could easily carry over into the work done by the
National Science Foundation and others. The nature of scientific
research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary with researchers at NIH
collaborating with researchers at the US Geological Survey and other
agencies in the areas of medical geology and environmental health. There
are ongoing investigations relative to arsenic in drinking water,
asbestos, water and soil toxicity. As yet, there has been no discussion on
the impact this model would have on coauthors or collaborative efforts
within the sciences.
When you meet with the House Committee to iron out funding differences
for FY05, I urge you to include language in the conference committee
report that delays the PubMed Central model from going into effect until
the authorizing committees have had an opportunity to hold hearings on
this issue. Congress must take a much more careful look at this issue
in public and on the record with all stakeholders able to present their
viewpoint.
Respectfully,
*******************
The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Member House Energy and Commerce
Committee
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell:
The scientific community recently learned of both Administration and
Congressionally-directed efforts to implement a government mandated open
access policy to federally funded scientific research. On September
17, 2004 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a plan in the
Federal Register to develop and implement a distribution center for all
federally-funded scientific research articles. This comes on the heels
of the House of Representatives approval of the FY05 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. The report
accompanying that bill praised NIH's electronic repository, PubMed Central, for
providing public access to life-science articles. It also strongly
encouraged taking the project a step further: requiring all reports and
data resulting from research funded by NIH to be available on PubMed
Central.
The scientific community is concerned that your committee, which has
oversight of NIH, has not held a hearing on this issue or discussed this
policy change in an open forum. Both the Congress and Administration
appear to be racing toward a solution with uncharacteristic speed for
what amounts to an undefined problem. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, head of the
NIH, told a group of stakeholders in a July meeting that open access was
necessary for NIH's internal management of grants, is key to patient
access and will help scientists who are currently being hindered because
they cannot open access each other's research. Members of Congress and
their staff point to the soaring cost of journals as the problem
quickly followed with a nod to patient access.
If the problem is indeed one of needing to better manage the grants
within NIH, then there is no need for the publication-ready journal
articles to be freely accessible on the Internet. Federal grantees are
already required to provide their funding agency with final reports and
copies of research papers or citations. This proposed policy would not
necessarily resolve internal NIH management challenges. Moreover, I would
be hard pressed to name a publisher opposed to providing NIH a copy of
an article for their internal record keeping purposes.
The NIH has not been able to provide data that support their assertion
that a large number of individuals and researchers are unable to access
current scientific literature. The publishing community has already
come together through Project Inform and backed a system wherein patients
who register with the appropriate "gate keepers," such as the American
Cancer Society, could have free and open access to their journals.
This solution to the patient access problem has not been sufficiently
explored by your committee or any committee.
Despite the lack of data demonstrating a need for new models of public
access, NIH intends to require that all final manuscripts produced with
any support from NIH be made freely available to anyone six months
after publication. This means that scientific papers will have already
gone through the peer review process, been edited, and properly laid out
for publication with color charts and graphs. In short, the scientific
publisher will have already ensured that the science is valid and made
the manuscript easy-to-read - journals will have already provided their
value-added services and made substantial financial investments in this
process. There is no indication that a six month lag time would be
sufficient to retain subscriptions from libraries and individuals. NIH is
threatening the continued vitality of not-for-profit scientific
journals and thereby the scholarly societies that provide the peer-review and
editorial services. Without these, the quality of U.S. research
and resulting publications would suffer, yet they cannot be provided
for free.
The NIH open access plan has not been properly vetted within the
Administration or Congress. It will set a precedent within the federal
scientific community and could easily carry over into the work done by the
National Science Foundation and others. The nature of scientific
research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary with researchers at NIH
collaborating with researchers at the US Geological Survey and other
agencies in the areas of medical geology and environmental health. There
are ongoing investigations relative to arsenic in drinking water,
asbestos, water and soil toxicity. As yet, there has been no discussion on
the impact this model would have on coauthors or collaborative efforts
within the sciences.
Five years ago, the Energy and Commerce Committee showed significant
leadership in putting NIH on the path to doubling their budget. I ask
that you show the same leadership on this issue and hold hearings that
will help to answer these questions prior to NIH's reauthorization
hearings in 2005.
I further urge you to consider holding a joint hearing with the House
Science Committee to examine the model proposed by the NIH and any
impacts it would have on the broader federal science landscape.
Respectfully,
*******************
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman The Honorable Bart Gordon,
Ranking Member House Science Committee
2246 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon:
The scientific community recently learned of both Administration and
Congressionally-directed efforts to implement a government mandated open
access policy to federally funded scientific research. On September
17, 2004 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a plan in the
Federal Register to develop and implement a distribution center for all
federally-funded scientific research articles. This comes on the heels
of the House of Representatives approval of the FY05 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations bill. The report
accompanying that bill praised NIH's electronic repository, PubMed Central, for
providing public access to life-science articles. It also strongly
encouraged taking the project a step further: requiring all reports and
data resulting from research funded by NIH to be available on PubMed
Central.
Both the Congress and Administration appear to be racing toward a
solution with uncharacteristic speed for what amounts to an undefined
problem. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, head of the NIH, told a group of stakeholders
in a July meeting that open access was necessary for NIH's internal
management of grants, is key to patient access and will help scientists who
are currently being hindered because they cannot open access each
other's research. Members of Congress and their staff point to the soaring
cost of journals as the problem quickly followed with a nod to patient
access.
If the problem is indeed one of needing to better manage the grants
within NIH, then there is no need for the publication-ready journal
articles to be freely accessible on the Internet. Federal grantees are
already required to provide their funding agency with final reports and
copies of research papers or citations. This proposed policy would not
necessarily resolve internal NIH management challenges. Moreover, I would
be hard pressed to name a publisher opposed to providing NIH a copy of
an article for their internal record keeping purposes.
The NIH has not been able to provide data that support their assertion
that a large number of individuals and researchers are unable to access
current scientific literature. The publishing community has already
come together through Project Inform and backed a system wherein patients
who register with the appropriate "gate keepers," such as the American
Cancer Society, could have free and open access to their journals.
This solution to the patient access problem has not been sufficiently
explored.
Despite the lack of data demonstrating a need for new models of public
access, NIH intends to require that all final manuscripts produced with
any support from NIH be made freely available to anyone six months
after publication. This means that scientific papers will have already
gone through the peer review process, been edited, and properly laid out
for publication with color charts and graphs. In short, the scientific
publisher will have already ensured that the science is valid and made
the manuscript easy-to-read. Journals will have already provided their
value-added services and made substantial financial investments in this
process. There is no indication that a six month lag time would be
sufficient to retain subscriptions from libraries and individuals. NIH is
threatening the continued vitality of not-for-profit scientific
journals and thereby the scholarly societies that provide the peer-review and
editorial services. Without these, the quality of U.S. research
and resulting publications would suffer, yet they cannot be provided
for free.
The NIH open access plan has not been properly vetted within the
Administration or Congress. It will set a precedent within the federal
scientific community and could easily carry over into the work done by the
National Science Foundation and others. Please weigh in with the FY05
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations conferees
and ask them to include language in the conference report that would
prohibit NIH from implementing its open access plan until Congress has
studied and held hearings on the implications of this proposed policy.
The NIH is scheduled to be reauthorized next year and it should be the
responsibility of the authorizing committee to debate this issue, not
the appropriations committee. Further, I ask that you hold hearings on
this issue to explore its implications across the broader federal
science landscape.
Respectfully,
This issue is being continually updated on AGI's website at
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/public_access.html.
Special update prepared by Emily Lehr Wallace, AGI Government Affairs
Program
Sources: Thomas Legislative database and the Federal Register.
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
3) AAAS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY FELLOWSHIPS: 2005- 2006
Help shape public policy in Washington, DC.
Scientists and engineers are invited to apply for one-year science and
technology policy fellowships in Washington, DC, beginning September
2005. These 10 programs, administered by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS), are designed to provide each Fellow
with a unique public policy learning experience and to bring technical
backgrounds and external perspectives to decision-making in the U.S.
government. The application deadline is January 10, 2005
Fellows serve in the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the
National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Agency for
International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and other
federal offices.
Applicants must have a PhD or an equivalent doctoral degree by the
application deadline from any physical, biological or social science, any
field of engineering or any relevant interdisciplinary field.
Individuals with a master's degree in engineering and at least three years of
post-degree professional experience also may apply. Applicants must be
U.S. citizens and federal employees are ineligible. Stipends begin at
$62,000.
For application instructions and further information about the AAAS
Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Programs, contact:
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Programs
1200 New York Avenue, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202/326-6700
E-mail: fellowships@aaas.org
Web: www.fellowships.aaas.org.
Persons from underrepresented minority groups and persons with
disabilities are encouraged to apply.
Other Congressional Science Fellowship deadlines are:
Geological Society of America: January 21, 2005
http://www.geosociety.org/science/csf/scifello.htm#S3
American Geophysical Union: February 1, 2005
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/congress_fellows03.html
American Geological Institute: February 1, 2005
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/csf/index.html
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
4) POSITION OPENINGS
2004-064
Wright State University
Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program and Fellowships
The Environmental Sciences Ph.D. Program at Wright State University
provides a strong interdisciplinary focus on stressor fate and effects in
3 areas of faculty expertise: Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry,
Environmental Stressors, and Environmental Geophysics and Hydrogeology.
There are over 30 program faculty from the Departments of Biological
Sciences, Chemistry, Geological Sciences, Pharmacology & Toxicology, and
Physics. Wright State University is located in Dayton, Ohio with a
student enrollment of approximately 17,000. The ES program began in 2002
and is a program of excellence with internationally recognized research.
Research and Teaching Assistantships are available (>$18,000 stipend +
tuition & fee waiver). In addition, the prestigious YSI Fellowship is
available for $25,000 (+ tuition & fee waiver) to outstanding
applicants. Students are encouraged to apply to the program and for financial
awards with either a B.S. or M.S. degree from a relevant major (e.
g., biology, chemistry, geology, physics, toxicology, environmental
sciences). There is no deadline for applications; however review of
applications will begin in January with awards made at any time. For more
information see www.wright.edu/academics/envsci.
* * * * * * * * * *
2004-067
Kansas State University
Earth Science Educator
The Department of Geology at Kansas State University invites applicants
for a tenure track Assistant Professor position in Earth Science
Education to start fall 2005. The successful applicant will also take an
active role in the activities of the K-State Center for the Understanding
of Origins. Job responsibilities include teaching introductory
geoscience courses, coordinating lab sections and training Graduate Teaching
Assistants. It is expected that this faculty hire will develop an
externally funded research/graduate program in earth science education, have
a firm commitment to undergraduate and graduate education, and be
involved in outreach activities. Interdisciplinary collaboration with
K-State colleagues is strongly encouraged. Preference will be given to
applicants who are dynamic teachers and who can demonstrate multicultural
competence and expertise in the scholarship of teaching. A PhD is
required, preferably in an area of the geological sciences; however, re
lated areas will be considered if expertise in geosciences is
demonstrated.
Review of applications will begin November 1, 2004 and will continue
until the position is filled. Applications should include a complete
vita, a teaching portfolio that demonstrates applicant's experience in
education scholarship, and a statement of research interests. Three
letters of reference must be sent to the department at the time of
application. All materials should be sent to: Dr. Jack Oviatt, Search Committee
Chair, Department of Geology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS
66506 (joviatt@ksu.edu). For further information about the department
and the
K-State Center for the Understanding of Origins see:
http://www.ksu.edu/geology and http://
http://www.phys.ksu.edu/~origins.%A0
Kansas State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action
employer and actively seeks diversity among its employees.
* * * * * * * * * *
2004-091
Georgia Southern University
Temporary Position in Coastal Geology
Position Description
The Department of Geology and Geography invites applications for a
temporary position in coastal geology. Specific areas of expertise might
include, but are not limited to, beach and near-shore sedimentation,
coastal geomorphology, shallow marine environments, or coastal plain
geology. This individual will teach sedimentation and stratigraphy, coastal
geology, and will share responsibility for courses in environmental
geology and historical geology and associated laboratories. The rank
(either Assistant or Associate Professor of Geology) and salary will be
commensurate with the applicant's experience and accomplishments.
Preference will be given to candidates who have active research projects on
the Atlantic Coast of the United States, who apply GIS to their research,
and those with prior undergraduate teaching experience. A PhD in
geology or a closely related field must be completed by the position
starting date of August 1, 2005. The one-year position may be renewable
for two additional one-year appointments.
The University and the Department
Georgia Southern University (http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/), a unit
of the University System of Georgia, is the largest center of higher
education in the southern half of Georgia. The Department of Geology and
Geography offers courses that lead to the BS and BA degrees with majors
in both geography and geology. The Department's web site
(http://cost.georgiasouthern.edu/geo/) provides an overview of our
programs, faculty, and facilities, as well as a more extensive description
of this position.
Application Information
Please direct a letter of application including a statement of research
and teaching interests, a curriculum vitae, supporting documentation
(such as reprints and evidence of teaching effectiveness), and the names,
e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for three references to: Dr.
Charles H. Trupe, Search Committee Chair, Department of Geology and
Geography, P.O. Box 8149, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA
30460-8149. Initial review of applications begins on December 15, 2004 and
will continue until the position is filled.
The names of applicants and nominees, résumés, and other general
non-evaluative information may be subject to public inspection under the
Georgia Open Records Act. Persons who need reasonable accommodations under
the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to participate in the
search process should notify the Search Committee Chair. Georgia Southern
University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution.
* * * * * * * * * *
2004-119
University of Maryland, College Park
Department of Geology
The Department of Geology at UMd is searching for outstanding
scientists as faculty colleagues in the broadly-defined areas of mineralogy
(with any specialty from mineral chemistry to mineral physics), and
geomicrobiology/biogeosciences. A Ph.D. is required at the time of
appointment and the starting date is flexible. The Department anticipates
filling several positions, with the possibility of at least one hire at a
senior rank. Salary will be commensurate with experience. The appointee
is expected to develop and maintain an active, externally-funded
research program that will involve both graduate and undergraduate students,
and to participate fully in teaching at the graduate and undergraduate
levels, including introductory courses at the freshman level. We
particularly seek applicants who will interact with and complement existing
research programs, both in the Department and more widely in the
College and across the Campus; additionally, the Department encourages in
terdisciplinary approaches to the study of the Earth and participates
in the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center.
The University of Maryland is an affirmative action/equal employment
opportunity employer. For best consideration, applications should be
submitted by December 1, 2004, preferably electronically, and should be
submitted to: Chair, Search Committee, Department of Geology, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA (at geo-apply@umd.edu).
Applicants should provide a statement describing research and teaching
interests, indicating how s/he envisions contributing to the Department’s
research and teaching activities, current curriculum vitae and names and
addresses of at least four referees. Applicants should ask a minimum
of two of these nominated referees to send letters directly to the Chair
of the Search Committee as soon as possible (via geo-apply@umd.edu).
* * * * * * * * * *
2004-120
Boise State University
Tenure Track Appointment
The Department of Geosciences at Boise State University, as part of a
planned expansion of its Ph.D. programs, invites applications for the
first of two new tenure-track (Assistant Professor) faculty positions to
be hired from the following disciplines: Earth History/Global Change
Science, with an emphasis in applying stable isotopic and other
chemostratigraphic proxies to understanding paleoclimatic, paleoceanographic,
and/or paleobiological change in both the deep time and recent rock
record; Hydrologic Science, with an emphasis in applying stable isotopic
and other quantitative techniques to modern global climate change, the
hydrologic cycle, hydrogeology, surface processes, and/or geobiological
investigations; Neotectonics/Tectonic Geomorphology, with an emphasis in
applying quantitative geophysical and/or geochronological techniques to
elucidating geodynamic linkages to landscape evolution.
New colleagues in these fields will complement our existing strengths
in biostratigraphy and geochronology, orogenic systems science,
hydrological sciences and surficial processes, and shallow subsurface
geophysics. The successful applicant will develop a nationally-recognized
research program supported by extramural funding and participate in the
continued growth of the Department. We seek a colleague eager to establish
collaborative research efforts, participate in developing analytical
facilities, provide research opportunities for undergraduate and graduate
students, and deliver courses for undergraduate and graduate programs.
A Ph.D. in an Earth Science discipline is required at the time of
appointment; previous teaching and/or post-graduate research experience will
be considered strong assets.
Boise State University is a growing institution (>18,000 students)
serving Idaho's metropolitan center. As the StateÕs capital and business,
financial and cultural center, Boise is recognized as one of America's
best places to live. A favorable cost of living, coupled with moderate
climate and a wide variety of cultural and recreational opportunities,
contribute to an outstanding quality of life for our faculty. A
vibrant intellectual community draws from scientists at the University,
regional high-tech industries, and numerous state and federal agencies; the
Department of Geosciences benefits from collaborative activities with
partners across this spectrum. Additional information about the
Department of Geosciences and the University can be found through our web
site: http://earth.boisestate.edu/.
Boise State University is an EOE/AA institution and is strongly
committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The University
actively encourages applications from women, persons of color, and
members of other underrepresented groups. Veteran’s preference may be
applicable. Applicants should send a Curriculum Vita, Statement of
Research and Teaching Interests, and contact information for at least three
referees to: Search Committee, Department of Geosciences, Boise State
University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725. Review of applicants
will begin December 15, 2004, and continue until a qualified applicant
pool is established. Email correspondence (questions or submission of
application materials) can be sent to markschmitz@boisestate.edu.
444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
5) CONTACT INFORMATION
To submit an item to E-MAIL NEWS contact: editor@awg.org
To submit advertising contact: ads@awg.org
To change your address or be removed from the list contact:
office@awg.org