Access to federally funded research doesn’t honor Aaron Swartz
So soon after the technologist's death, the White House making research public deserves only cautious praise
Topics: Aaron Swartz, open data, scientific research, ostp, White House, Transparency, Technology News, News
We can all pretty much agree that making public and freely available the fruits of federally funded research is important and good. As such, we can be pleased with the recent announcement that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has mandated that federal agencies with more than $100 million in R&D expenditures develop plans to make the published results of their research freely available to the public within one year of publication.
We can also probably agree that Aaron Swartz, the brilliant technologist who committed suicide facing trumped up federal charges, who long advocated for free access to scientific research, would have been pleased with the announcement. And it’s fair to say, as some commentators already have, that increased support for Swartz’s open data activism since his death helped prompt the government announcement. A White House website petition calling for free access to federally funded research had garnered 65,000 signatures.
But if this is a victory for Swartz and his supporters it is Pyrrhic at best. At worst, it is just the latest example of the Obama administration’s selective and deeply flawed approach to open data and transparency.
“The Obama administration agrees that citizens deserve easy access to the results of research their tax dollars have paid for,” wrote OSTP director John Holdren, commending the announcement. But — as Aaron Swartz learned all too well — the Obama administration will bring the full force of the law against those seeking access to research and information which the government has not already sanctioned for free public view. Bradley Manning and Jeremy Hammond, to name two pertinent examples, know too well that the Obama administration has very different feelings about public access to information on the fruits of other federally funded activity. A number of senators seeking access to legal opinions on targeted killings are learning this lesson too.
I’ve drawn on this essay before, but it bears reference again here. In a piece last year for the New Inquiry, Sarah Leonard noted that this administration has consistently embraced transparency in the form of making public mountains of data while black boxing information as and when it chooses. She wrote:
Natasha Lennard is an assistant news editor at Salon, covering non-electoral politics, general news and rabble-rousing. Follow her on Twitter @natashalennard, email nlennard@salon.com. More Natasha Lennard.




Yahoo Used To Have An 'Internet Life' Magazine And It Was Amazing
The New Star Trek Movie Was On YouTube For More Than 24 Hours
What It Looks Like To Get Eaten By A Grizzly Bear
The Strange World Of High School Confession Pages
Why racist, nasty comments are better than none at all
Orchestrate.io gets $3M to crunch many kinds of data in the cloud
With $10M, ConsultingMD helps patients get speedy second opinions from top specialists
Exclusive: LogMeIn launches AppGuru to help IT wrangle consumer apps
SAP to bring in autistic workers as software testers and programmers

Comments
1 Comments