The Date: May 25th, 2004
The Place: Washington, DC
The Event: Medical Library Association Annual Meeting
The Moment: Business Meeting Pt II
There can be no Sancho Panza without a Don Quixote, or a Dulcinea. I was sitting next to my Don, Wayne Peay, as a new editor of the first open access medical library journal. I had been pulling together a team and preparing to write my first editorial prior to the annual meeting. Wayne had come to the conference determined to show leadership in the simmering debate about the risks and rewards of open access, and he had chosen a normally placid and routine business meeting.
I found my Don in the auditorium. He had a twinkle in his eye, and I asked if the seat next to him was taken, and he implied that I needed to be in that seat at this moment. The story is in the official proceedings for the meeting. MLA President Patricia Thibodeau asked “Is there any other new business to come before the assembly?” Wayne rose and moved to the floor microphone and spoke:
“My name is Wayne Peay. I am at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and I would like to offer the following motion: The Medical Library Association will cease accepting funding from publishers who do not support open access. And I have a second.”
Well, I wish it had been me, but Wayne had already arranged for a colleague, future MLA President Mary Ryan. Then the consent was given for Wayne to speak in support of his motion:
“This is Wayne again. First of all, I would appreciate the opportunity to present this motion and the assistance I receive from the board and the leadership and the staff. I would like to begin by reminding us of the first principle of our Code of Ethics. The health sciences librarian promotes access to health information for all. To be true to our professional values, we must champion open access.
The question today is how can our association accept money from publishers that do not support open access and not have a conflict of interest in representing its members and their values? This conflict of interest is exposed in the financial reports that express how important this money is to the operations of the association.
Let us not forget where this money comes from. This money is extorted from our libraries, from our students for obscene profits and to buy influence. Again, this year, this extortion will mean millions of dollars from our institutional members.
I realize there are many questions and many details relating to this motion. And the rules will not allow me time to respond to all of them. But let me try to anticipate a couple.
First, what is open access? And that is a very fair question and a difficult one to answer. This is a developing model. I do think we can agree that those publishers that work with PubMed Central qualify as open access.
Second, should we not balance our support for open access? And I ask, how do we balance our first principle? Picture what it takes to balance. Every effort is expended in trying to maintain some safe position, not move forward, not advocate, not support our values.
So what about the other valid details? This is clearly a work in progress. There is uncertainty, but I am confident that the membership, the board, working together in good faith can lead this revolution and, by God, we will win. Thank you.
What was the response to this bold charge? Did the association rise in unison to confront the opposition to our values? Wayne’s rallying cry also carried with it a dramatic financial implication for MLA, the degree with which commercial publisher contributions underwrote the very conference in which we sat (or stood). So Wayne was probably aiming at a windmill. But his sentiment and spirit sealed our brotherhood. If Wayne could put his reputation as an RML and Medical Library Director on the line for the principles of open knowledge as a cornerstone of our profession at a national meeting, I would be his Sancho Panza. I finished my
unabashed first editorial and published it in June.
Tags: publishers, serials pricing crisis
