The US Congress is considering legislation that would require the authors of scientific articles that have received National Institutes of Health grants to submit their papers for free public inspection on the federal agency's web site. Copyright advocates claim this will reduce intellectual property protection and harm the peer-reviewed journals' economic viability, Technology Today reports. The legislation was approved by the House of Representatives in a spending bill for the NIH (HR3043).
The dispute mirrors similar demands by anti-patent advocates who argue that drug companies benefit from research that is funded by the NIH, without adequate compensation being made to taxpayers, from whose funds the drug industry allegedly benefits. This position, which is widely held in the general media and by the public, is challenged by Derek Lowe, a drug industry commentator.
Mr Lowe noted: "that idea seems pretty indestructible, although you'd think it would at least be dented by talking to people who actually try to develop drugs." He added: "I have a recent example coming up of an academic compound which may well do exciting things in a dish, but has as much chance of becoming a drug as I do of becoming an Olympic pole-vault champion."
This article is accessible to registered users, to continue reading please register for free. A free trial will give you access to exclusive features, interviews, round-ups and commentary from the sharpest minds in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space for a week. If you are already a registered user please login. If your trial has come to an end, you can subscribe here.
Login to your accountTry before you buy
7 day trial access
Become a subscriber
Or £77 per month
The Pharma Letter is an extremely useful and valuable Life Sciences service that brings together a daily update on performance people and products. It’s part of the key information for keeping me informed
Chairman, Sanofi Aventis UK
Copyright © The Pharma Letter 2025 | Headless Content Management with Blaze