[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 26550-26551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           PRIVATIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 16, 2005

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I sent the attached letter, along with my 
colleagues, in opposition to the proposed privatization of 
Environmental Health Perspectives on November 10, 2005.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, November 10, 2005.
     Dr. Elias Zerhouni,
     Director, National Institutes of Health,
     Bethesda, Maryland.
       Dear Dr. Zerhouni: We write to express our strong 
     opposition to the proposed privatization of Environmental 
     Health Perspectives (EHP). Doing so places at risk the 
     integrity and quality of one of the world's best independent 
     journals covering the area of science that deals with the 
     environment and health. We urge you to reject EHP 
     privatization.

[[Page 26551]]

       EHP is one of the premier academic peer reviewed journals 
     in the world. It ranks second among 132 environmental science 
     journals, and fifth among ninety public environmental and 
     occupational health journals. If it were considered among the 
     general medical journals like the New England Journal of 
     Medicine and JAMA, it would rank tenth. Early signs indicate 
     that this year, all those rankings are likely to increase.
       Its value and uniqueness stem, in large part, from its 
     status as a publicly managed journal. For example, EHP's 
     independence directly enhances the quality of the work it 
     publishes. Their conflict of interest policy is among the 
     strictest of peer-reviewed journals. Such a policy might be 
     compromised if the journal was privately published.
       In addition, its public funding source allows it to be an 
     open access journal, which means anyone with Internet access 
     can get any EHP article 24 hours after it is accepted for 
     publication. That is essential because the vast majority of 
     published research is available only through increasingly 
     costly journal subscriptions, institutional license fees, or 
     per-article purchases. This closed system leaves the American 
     public--including physicians, public health professionals, 
     patients and patient groups, students, teachers, librarians 
     and scientists at academic institutions, hospitals, research 
     laboratories, and corporate research centers--under-informed 
     about important, timely research results they helped finance.
       Because EHP is publicly funded, important public health 
     functions are performed that the private sector would be 
     unlikely to support. The National Institute of Environmental 
     Health Sciences (NIEHS), which runs EHP, provides free 
     monthly copies to those in the developing world, where 
     environmental health problems are, in many cases, the most 
     severe. NIEHS also provides EHP classroom materials for 
     universities and high schools. These non-revenue-generating 
     programs have high public health value and would be at risk 
     if EHP were privatized. The breadth of appeal and academic 
     discipline that uniquely characterizes EHP would also be at 
     risk of sustaining a narrowing of scope more in line with 
     privately run journals.
       Finally, NIEHS does a highly efficient job of running EHP. 
     In the last year, the EHP budget was $3.3 million, which is 
     less than one half of one per cent of the NIEHS budget. In 
     the last four years, they have reduced their budget by 
     fifteen percent while they have become an open access 
     journal, expanded their reach to other countries, expanded 
     their educational programs, and dramatically increased the 
     quality of the articles. Despite having this record that any 
     private sector establishment would envy, NIEHS is considering 
     still more cost cutting measures to further streamline. The 
     impact of EHP on public health far surpasses its costs.
       Privatizing EHP is unnecessary and unwise. It would yield 
     miniscule cost savings while exacting a large cost to public 
     health. We urge you to reject privatizing EHP.
           Sincerely,
         Dennis J. Kucinich, Hilda L. Solis, Bart Gordon, Mark 
           Udall, Raul M. Grijalva, Jim McDermott, Brad Miller, 
           Bernard Sanders, Robert Wexler, Barbara Lee, James P. 
           McGovern, James P. Moran, Martin O. Sabo.

                          ____________________