New version of EPA letter

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Everyone,

 

It’s difficult to divine exactly what to changes to make to this letter, but what I’m hearing from you is to try to be more apolitical, respectful, helpful, inclusive, and non-committal (as in recommending a specific course of action or committing OSI to a particular viewpoint).

 

I’m attaching a new version here that I hope accomplishes this. Please let me know off-list what you think (if you care, that is---I know you all have plenty of other things to do and not everyone is vested in this effort). What I’m trying to state here is that we’re a diverse group with lots of opinions and here are a few opinions to consider (which aren’t held by everyone in this group).

 

This will be my final version until next week (maybe Monday?)---I want to give everyone a chance to comment before moving on.

 

Thank you again,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:35 AM
To: 'Danny Kingsley' <da...@cam.ac.uk>; 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>; 'osi20...@googlegroups.com' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: EPA letter tabled

 

Hi Susan, Danny, and others (who have emailed me off-list),

 

I won’t send it out as-is, and certainly won’t under the OSI banner if we have strong dissent. You aren’t the only ones who disagree with the tone and/or content. Representing the diversity of viewpoints in OSI is one thing---misrepresenting our views is entirely another. This was my draft alone, understanding that a few in this group loved the previous, similar version, and a few absolutely hated it.

 

I’ll table this effort for now but keep it on the burner for the next summit meeting. In the meantime, if you’re so inclined, I would be indebted for your continued feedback---off-list is best.

 

Thanks all,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:00 AM
To: Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

 

This is a good point Susan. Glenn perhaps you could ask (for people respond offline please to save our inboxes) who is happy to be a signatory? I think it is perfectly fine to say this letter emerged from discussions with the wider OSI group, and for it to go out under the OSI logo, but that the signatories are those who are actively engaged in this particular topic.

 

As an Australian living in the UK, I can appreciate the issues with this topic for the US (and yes, there are some more global issues too of course) but I don’t have any real skin in this game.

 

Danny

 

Dr Danny Kingsley

Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services

Cambridge University Library

e: da...@cam.ac.uk

p: 01223 747 437

m: 07711 500 564

From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>
Date: Friday, 18 May 2018 at 14:26
To: "osi20...@googlegroups.com" <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

 

Hi Glenn – how will this letter be signed?   I would prefer that I and JSMF not be considered signatories.   I fundamentally disagree with the overt effort to continually politicize scholarship.  I know you will say “science didn’t start this fight’  - still, the reaction is something we have control over.    Science communications in my view have a special responsibility to be completely trustworthy with no hint of bias.   Not to restart the conversation, but just for the record, my preference would be for a more constructive acknowledgement that science can indeed strive for more openness (and openness beyond the scientific community) and how to do that in a way that does not jeopardize the processes.     There is risk in openness – and those of us who feel strongly that the risks are worth the benefits have to work to minimize the first and maximize the second.   Thanks for your continued willingness to adjudicate the many diverse voices and opinions that reside in this vast tent.    Best, SUSAN

 

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:12 AM
To: Abridged recipients <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

 

osi20...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Today's topic summary
View all topics

·        EPA letter draft - 1 Update

EPA letter draft

"Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>: May 17 01:50PM -0700 Hi Everyone,   Here's an update on the effort to draft a comment on the proposed EPA rule regarding openness and transparency in science (if you're not into this discussion, read no further). ...more

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

 

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joyce Ogburn]

I think it should be short and to the point. A letter this long probably won't be read. 

My 2 cents from writing letters of this kind and legislators. Of course this is the EPA....

Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn

Appalachian State University

218 College Street

Boone NC 28608-2026

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 

. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

 

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs

.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to

osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[David Wojick]

As of now there are just about 200 substantive comments.
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259

There are over 40,000 overall but EDF and some others often run duplicate email campaigns on EPA proposals. I once saw EDF generate 500,000 email comments. These are not separately posted.

This is a very high profile case so I think even a long letter will be read by viewers and EPA alike, if it has something to say.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/


At 03:11 PM 5/18/2018, Joyce Ogburn wrote:

I think it should be short and to the point. A letter this long probably won't be read.Â

My 2 cents from writing letters of this kind and legislators. Of course this is the EPA....

Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn

Appalachian State University
218 College Street
Boone NC 28608-2026

Lifelong learning requires lifelong accessÂ

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Â

It’s difficult to divine exactly what to changes to make to this letter, but what I’m hearing from you is to try to be more apolitical, respectful, helpful, inclusive, and non-committal (as in recommending a specific course of action or committing OSI to a particular viewpoint).

Â

I’m attaching a new version here that I hope accomplishes this. Please let me know off-list what you think (if you care, that is---I know you all have plenty of other things to do and not everyone is vested in this effort). What I’m trying to state here is that we’re a diverse group with lots of opinions and here are a few opinions to consider (which aren’t held by everyone in this group).

Â

This will be my final version until next week (maybe Monday?)---I want to give everyone a chance to comment before moving on.

Â

Thank you again,

Â

Glenn

Â

Â

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

Â

Â

Â

From: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:35 AM

To: 'Danny Kingsley' <da...@cam.ac.uk>; 'Susan Fitzpatrick' <su...@jsmf.org>; ' osi20...@googlegroups.com' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: EPA letter tabled

Â

Hi Susan, Danny, and others (who have emailed me off-list),

Â

I won’t send it out as-is, and certainly won’t under the OSI banner if we have strong dissent. You aren’t the only ones who disagree with the tone and/or content. Representing the diversity of viewpoints in OSI is one thing---misrepresenting our views is entirely another. This was my draft alone, understanding that a few in this group loved the previous, similar version, and a few absolutely hated it.

Â

I’ll table this effort for now but keep it on the burner for the next summit meeting. In the meantime, if you’re so inclined, I would be indebted for your continued feedback---off-list is best.

Â

Thanks all,

Â

Glenn

Â

Â

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

Â

Â

Â

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:00 AM

To: Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Â

This is a good point Susan. Glenn perhaps you could ask (for people respond offline please to save our inboxes) who is happy to be a signatory? I think it is perfectly fine to say this letter emerged from discussions with the wider OSI group, and for it to go out under the OSI logo, but that the signatories are those who are actively engaged in this particular topic.

Â

As an Australian living in the UK, I can appreciate the issues with this topic for the US (and yes, there are some more global issues too of course) but I don’t have any real skin in this game.

Â

Danny

Â

Dr Danny Kingsley

Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services

Cambridge University Library

e:Â da...@cam.ac.uk

p: 01223 747 437

m: 07711 500 564

From: < osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Susan Fitzpatrick <su...@jsmf.org>

Date: Friday, 18 May 2018 at 14:26

To: " osi20...@googlegroups.com" < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: RE: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Â

Hi Glenn – how will this letter be signed?   I would prefer that I and JSMF not be considered signatories.   I fundamentally disagree with the overt effort to continually politicize scholarship.  I know you will say “science didn’t start this fight’  - still, the reaction is something we have control over.    Science communications in my view have a special responsibility to be completely trustworthy with no hint of bias.   Not to restart the conversation, but just for the record, my preference would be for a more constructive acknowledgement that science can indeed strive for more openness (and openness beyond the scientific community) and how to do that in a way that does not jeopardize the processes.     There is risk in openness – and those of us who feel strongly that the risks are worth the benefits have to work to minimize the first and maximize the second.   Thanks for your continued willingness to adjudicate the many diverse voices and opinions that reside in this vast tent.    Best, SUSAN

Â

Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.

President, James S. McDonnell Foundation

Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor

SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com  

Â

Â

Â

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:12 AM

To: Abridged recipients < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Abridged summary of osi20...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Â

osi20...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

[Glenn Hampson]

Here’s a suggestion from one OSIer (name withheld for now). I’m rushing this out to you anonymously because it’s almost closing time back East and I want to get this into your thinking caps before the weekend. This person’s suggestion is that I should write this letter as the ED of OSI, but not say “on behalf of OSI.” In this way, I can “just” note the diversity of opinions in this group without suggesting that everyone in the group agrees with any or all of these. If I do something like this, the first few paragraphs of the letter could read like this:

The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is an international group working in partnership with the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to improve the transparency and openness of research around the world. Over 400 leaders in scholarly communication are participating in this effort, representing 18 scholarly communication stakeholder groups (including university leaders, researchers, science publishing executives, library leaders, open science leaders and more) and over 250 institutions globally. As a group, we have very broad expertise and a wide variety of opinions on the issue of open. Our diversity and expertise are both crucial parts of trying to develop workable solutions to the global future of open scholarship, including but not limited to open science.

As the OSI program director and executive director of the nonprofit overseeing this effort (the Science Communication Institute), I would like to offer you a few observations that have been made by OSI participants about this proposed rule. Some in our group have praised the EPA’s intent to make science more open but perhaps question the fine print of this approach (which, of course, is why you’re asking for comments); others have expressed more fundamental concerns about issues like authority, privacy, and possible broader impacts. Not everyone has expressed concerns or sees the same concerns as being important. Among the concerns that have been raised are:

What do you think? Is this better? Is this a workable approach for getting our opinions out there without also getting universal agreement? Personally I like it a lot. It’s effectively the same letter---maybe even better because it clears away the clutter caused by trying to write something “on behalf of” this group and also frees you up to say what’s really on your mind.

Thanks,

 

Glenn

[David Wojick]

This is in fact a common practice with scholarly societies. The ED does not speak for all of the members.

David

On May 18, 2018, at 4:30 PM, "Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Here’s a suggestion from one OSIer (name withheld for now). I’m rushing this out to you anonymously because it’s almost closing time back East and I want to get this into your thinking caps before the weekend. This person’s suggestion is that I should write this letter as the ED of OSI, but not say “on behalf of OSI.” In this way, I can “just” note the diversity of opinions in this group without suggesting that everyone in the group agrees with any or all of these. If I do something like this, the first few paragraphs of the letter could read like this:

The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is an international group working in partnership with the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to improve the transparency and openness of research around the world. Over 400 leaders in scholarly communication are participating in this effort, representing 18 scholarly communication stakeholder groups (including university leaders, researchers, science publishing executives, library leaders, open science leaders and more) and over 250 institutions globally. As a group, we have very broad expertise and a wide variety of opinions on the issue of open. Our diversity and expertise are both crucial parts of trying to develop workable solutions to the global future of open scholarship, including but not limited to open science.

As the OSI program director and executive director of the nonprofit overseeing this effort (the Science Communication Institute), I would like to offer you a few observations that have been made by OSI participants about this proposed rule. Some in our group have praised the EPA’s intent to make science more open but perhaps question the fine print of this approach (which, of course, is why you’re asking for comments); others have expressed more fundamental concerns about issues like authority, privacy, and possible broader impacts. Not everyone has expressed concerns or sees the same concerns as being important. Among the concerns that have been raised are:

What do you think? Is this better? Is this a workable approach for getting our opinions out there without also getting universal agreement? Personally I like it a lot. It’s effectively the same letter---maybe even better because it clears away the clutter caused by trying to write something “on behalf of” this group and also frees you up to say what’s really on your mind.

Thanks,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

<image001.jpg>

<image001.jpg>

<image002.jpg>