C&EN Washington

It's hard to believe National Institutes of Health Director Harold E. Varmus is getting any work done this summer. Ever since May 5, when he posted his idea for an electronic publishing site titled "E-biomed," the energetic Nobel Laureate has been getting an earful of comments from interested scientists, concerned commercial and nonprofit scientific publishers, and the scientific and general media.

Varmus, of course, is not shy about giving as good as he gets, and that's just what he did late last month at two forums. The first was held at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington D.C., on June 24 and was called "a summit of electronic publishers." That meeting was attended by representatives from many scientific societies, including the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN and 32 other journals and magazines.

On June 30, Varmus, along with representatives from three publishing organizations, talked to science writers at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Md. Although the NAS meeting was closed to the media, sources present at both meetings told C&EN that Varmus gave virtually the same presentation. And at both sessions, an adversarial tone dominated discussions between Varmus and his audience, with Varmus expressing surprise at the vehement reaction coming from some publishers. At one point with the science writers, he derisively called a publisher's comments about E-biomed "paranoic."

To understand why this proposal has riled so many people, one must first understand what Varmus has suggested in "E-biomed: A Proposal for Electronic Publications in the Biomedical Sciences" (http://www.nih.gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/ebiomed.htm). The draft proposal, prepared by Varmus with assistance from a number of people, takes up a mere six single-spaced pages when printed from the web site. However, they are a revolutionary six pages.

In his proposal, Varmus notes that "electronic communication is making dramatic changes in the way information is exchanged among scientists. But "despite these welcome and transforming changes, the full potential of electronic communication has yet to be realized. The scientific community has made only sparing use thus far of the Internet as a means to publish scientific work and to distribute it widely and without significant barriers to access."

He devotes just one paragraph to extolling the virtues of the current system of scientific publishing, which he acknowledges has worked well for more than 300 years. Among these virtues are peer review, the ability of journals to confer status and grounds for career advancement, attractive formats, and convenience.

In the plan he envisions, "E-biomed would transmit and maintain, in both permanent online and downloaded archives, reports in the many fields that constitute biomedical research, including clinical research, cell and molecular biology, medically related behavioral research, bioengineering, and other disciplines within biology and medicine. The essential feature of the plan is simplified, instantaneous, cost-free access by potential readers to E-biomed's entire content in a manner that permits each reader to pursue his or her own interests as productively as possible."

Authors would retain copyrights of articles posted to E-biomed, and articles could be freely downloaded but reproduced only with the permission of the authors. E-biomed would have two sites for authors: In one, reports would be submitted to editorial boards, which could be identical to those that represent current print journals or composed of some other newly formed group. "Other reports," Varmus writes, "would be posted immediately in the E-biomed repository, prior to any conventional peer review, after passing a simple screen for appropriateness." Appropriateness is not clearly defined in the original proposal, but Varmus notes that "each report would need to be approved by two individuals with appropriate credentials" who presumably would ensure that the articles are related to the subject areas of E-biomed and are not too "extraneous or outrageous."

Varmus cites the following advantages of E-biomed, among others:

 Open access to scientific reports and assembly of personalized journals, with reports searchable by a single search engine.

 More rapid dissemination of scientific information by speeding up both the review and production processes currently used in scientific publishing.

 Reduced costs, especially to users, who would have free access to E-biomed.

Varmus concludes the proposal with an invitation to the scientific community to submit comments. In the ensuing weeks, hundreds of pro and con comments--literally the cyber equivalent of reams of paper--flooded in, dozens of which are now posted on the E-biomed web site.

On June 21, Varmus responded on the web to the most frequent questions and criticisms by restating some of the fuzzier aspects of the original proposal; the June 21 document is longer than the original proposal.

In his meeting with science writers on June 30, Varmus again responded to critics, stating that E-biomed arose from "reflections on what it takes to do science." He noted that he began his career 30 years ago, and "things have radically changed. We are now seeing the potential to shape the future in the best possible way."

He said it is not E-biomed's intention to eliminate peer review and existing journals. "On the contrary, we are eager to encourage journals, especially those with strong reputations for rigorous reviewing and careful editing, to become part of the system," Varmus said. He argued that E-biomed does not duplicate what current journals are doing in electronic publishing, as publishers claim, citing that E-biomed would be free, unlike existing journals that charge "large" fees.

He noted the legitimate concern about the posting of erroneous or misleading data, but he said a large part of E-biomed will be peer reviewed, and that few scientists would knowingly post erroneous information because it could damage their reputations. He assured people that information on E-biomed will be "properly archived" so that it will be accessible in the future.

Critics have charged that E-biomed meddles with the private sector and could be construed as a "takeover by the U.S. government." Varmus insisted: "The system we have proposed welcomes the participation of existing journals, does not obligate any journals to join, and would not be owned by the NIH or any other component of the U.S. government."

He described an advisory board that would set general policy and oversee E-biomed's operations, noting that it would be made up of representatives from the international science community, scientific societies, libraries, the general public, and advocacy groups and would be international in scope.

Varmus estimated it would cost $2 million to $3 million per year to operate E-biomed. He claimed that the infrastructure to do this is already in place, and that the system's operating costs could come from the $200 to $1,000 per page that would be paid by authors submitting reports. In both his web response and in public forums, Varmus has dismissed the notion that the viability of scientific societies would be undermined by depriving them of significant sources of income currently derived from subscriptions, membership fees, and advertising.

After Varmus spoke to the science writers, three publishing representatives defined and defended the role of commercial and nonprofit society publishers.

Mary C. Waltham, U.S. president of Nature Publishing Inc. (which publishes Nature and six other journals with "nature" in their titles) was philosophical. She asked: "What is best for science? The wide, free availability of research will happen with or without E-biomed. [However], too much information is the bane of working scientists. They need well-selected materials and context from trusted sources." She was further concerned about ownership of E-biomed. "Whoever owns the publishing outfit determines its course. Who will own and manage E-biomed? Whose is the ultimate responsibility?"

Waltham said her personal view was that "the market will decide. We see a world that is clearly changing very rapidly. E-biomed gives the ball a very firm kick, hopefully in the right direction."

Next on the docket was M. Michele Hogan, executive director of the American Association of Immunologists, which publishes the Journal of Immunology, who expressed the views of many scientific society publishers in her brief remarks. "It has been suggested that associations' objections are motivated solely by economic self-interest," she said. "But the proposal would force not-for-profits to compete with NIH for their own content. NIH could become the sole supplier of scientific content and peer review."

What would be lost is "peer review independent of government, quality competition among journals, diversity, and technological innovation." Moreover, she believes, "publishing could be subject to congressional intervention, the vagaries of inconsistent funding, and possibly conflict of interest."

Karen Hunter, a senior vice president at Elsevier, which publishes, among others, 350 life sciences journals includingLancet and Cell, noted that Varmus' idea to charge authors "page charges" is not done by commercial publishers. Such charges would penalize scientists from poorer nations, she noted, and would not meet Varmus' stated goal of free and easier access to scientific information.

E-biomed is not going away. To advance the dialogue, a group of publishers hopes to meet with Varmus later this summer. They have their work cut out for them. In closing remarks to science reporters, Varmus said he's forging ahead and hopes to "initiate a system in a year or so. We're talking to some adventuresome souls who are starting new journals," he said with a smile as he left the podium.

Chemical & Engineering News
Copyright © 1999 American Chemical Society