The Republican war on science is systematic and multi-faceted and very difficult to keep up with. One episode which recently came to my attention involves my favorite technical journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), which is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and best of all, is open access. Now, more than ever, we need research on the risks from toxic substances in the environment, global climate change and other environmental health problems. EHP is a high-quality provider of peer-reviewed research papers and articles for the general public on environmental health topics. Yet, the Bush Administration is trying to neuter this important source for environmental health information through privatization, outsourcing and budget cuts (the funding level is being cut to the same amount that the NIEHS director spent remodeling his office). They don't like the news, so they're killing the messenger.
According to a post in the public health blog Effect Measure, the NIEHS originally attempted to privatize EHP and, when that move encountered strong resistance from the scientific community, has tried to outsource it's functions, and cut the journal's budget.
More of the story comes from the Society for Environmental Journalists. In November 2006, the SEJ wrote NIEHS, expressing its disapproval of the agency's plans for the journal. According to SEJ's newsletter:
The Society of Environmental Journalists is urging the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to abandon plans to downgrade and privatize its flagship journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. SEJ wrote the NIEHS director saying "to go forward on this course would be effectively to destroy an excellent magazine and to replace it with a different one of far less value to NIEHS and the U.S. public."
NIEHS on Oct. 12, 2006, put out a "Request for Proposals" seeking private contractors to run the magazine. Informed sources tell WatchDog that NIEHS Director David A. Schwartz plans to cut the magazine's budget by some 85 percent — pushing a contractor to downgrade the magazine or raise revenues to make up some of the difference.
Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) currently sets a national benchmark for "open access" publishing. While subscriptions to the print edition are sold for money, articles are available online to any reader in the world, quickly and without charge. To make money, any contractor would almost certainly need to shut off open access and charge money — radically decreasing the number of readers the magazine reaches.
SEJ wrote Schwartz Nov. 29, 2006, urging him not to outsource the magazine and cut its budget. SEJ takes positions on issues affecting public access to environmental information through its First Amendment Task Force.
"While NIEHS might save a few dollars with this approach, it would certainly be losing many thousands of readers," SEJ wrote Schwartz. "It seems penny-wise and pound-foolish, since the total amount NIEHS spends on EHP is scarcely half of one percent of its annual budget. That seems like a small investment if it helps ensure that the research funded by the bulk of NIEHS' budget reaches the people in the public health arena who can apply it to benefit the U.S. and world populations."
NIEHS announced in September 2005 that it was considering "privatization" of EHP — a term for which it is hard to find a precise definition, but one likely to please the free-market philosophers in the Bush administration. After overwhelmingly negative public comment on this idea, Schwartz issued a press release on June 28, 2006, saying NIEHS "will continue to publish" EHP — leading many to believe he had abandoned privatization plans.
But in fact, the contracting out of most of the magazine's major functions to a private publisher — as NIEHS indicated it would do in its request for proposals — will amount to privatization.
Effect Measure picks up the story again. NIEHS Director David Schwartz's plans for outsourcing EHP included a Request for Proposal which contained a "geographic restriction" requiring the contractor to be within 30 minutes of NIEHS' office in Research Triangle Park, NC. This appeared to favor award of the outsourcing contract to Duke University Press, and because Duke University was Schwartz' previous employer, this also created the appearance of conflict-of-interest. Transferring the contracting procedure to the presumably more independent National Library of Medicine does not appear to have improved matters much.
According to a SEJ tip sheet published April 4, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who chairs the House Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, and full Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), have launched an investigation of the controversy over EHP. On March 30, the committee wrote to David Schwartz, requesting by April 20, 2007 a wide range of documents related to the outsourcing of EHP and also to Schwartz's conduct as director of NIEHS. On April 9, 2007, Representatives Kucinich and Waxman wrote a letter to Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health requesting that the contracting for EHP be postponed until these irregularities have been resolved:
The recent proposal by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIIEHS) to privatize aspects of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) has raised serious concerns in the research community, Congress, and even from within the executive branch. We are writing to request your personal assurance that no further action will be taken on this proposal until the completion of the pending congressional inquiry into the matter undertaken by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
In November 2006, NIEHS first released a request for proposals (RFP) for the privatization of EHP. This original request was marred by apparent conflicts of interest and scrapped by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in January 2007. Now it appears that NIEHS may be moving ahead with another proposal to privatize EHP. We understand that NIH, through the National Library of Medicine (NLM), intends to release a new RFP in the near future that will solicit proposals from private parties interested in publishing EHP.
The Oversight Committee has commenced an investigation into the effort to privatize EHP. On January 24,2007, and again on March 30,2007, the Committee requested information on the EHP proposal from NIEHS. We urge you to direct NLM to refrain from releasing an RFP or pursuing any further action with respect to EHP until the Oversight Committee concludes its inquiry.
EHP has achieved a remarkable reputation over its years of publication. It would be tragic to damage the journal with a rash or controversial proposal before the congressional inquiry is completed.
At the same time, budget cuts at EHP appear to be moving ahead. According to the SEJ tip sheet Schwartz said he wanted to privatize EHP because its budget could be better spent on other things — especially research. The plan is to cut EHP's annual budget from over $3 million in 2005 down to about $500,000. That is about half of what Director Schwartz spent remodeling his office after he arrived at NIEHS — an office that had just been remodeled.
Some of the changes for EHP expected in coming months include:
- Beginning with the May issue, EHP will reduce the number of features it runs monthly from three to two.
- Schwartz will be removing his "Director's Perspective" column from the magazine and moving it to NIEHS' website. In his April column, he says the reason for doing this is to enhance the editorial independence of the magazine.
- Time available for editing articles, especially research articles, has diminished with contract support. Further reductions may show in quality of content.
- EHP is moving away from its longstanding practice of re-drawing figures submitted by research authors to make them easier to read and understand.
- EHP has ceased publishing its Student Edition in print (it has gone to the Web), and will soon stop publishing lesson plans for its student edition.
- The Chinese edition of EHP is no longer being subsidized by NIEHS. The Shanghai Center for Disease Control has paid the full cost for the last two issues, although it is not clear how long this will continue.
- The "Extramural Update" and "NIEHS News" articles will no longer be published in the print edition. They will move to the Web.
- The magazine will be cancelling free subscriptions to readers in developing countries.
In addition, staffing is being reduced, and the periodical suffers from the lack of a permanent managing editor. The position of science editor also has been vacant for a year.
It's good that the House oversight committee is on the job, but we all can do still more. Let your Congressional representatives know your feelings about this matter. Start reading EHP - it's not just for scientists. From my perspective, gutting EHP is many, many times more damaging than closing down the EPA libraries, simply because of the quality of research, the prestige of the journal and the fact that it is open access.