American Sociological Association, in absentia but not silent on open science

The American Sociological Association (ASA) remains in absentia with regard to public access to federally funded research.

Alondra Nelson has had a storied career in American social science. After joining the Yale sociology faculty in 2009, she wrote, among many other works, two crucial books: Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight Against Medical Discrimination (2013), and The Social Life of DNA: Race, Reparations, and Reconciliation after the Genome (2016). After moving to Columbia, she became Dean of Social Science in 2014, and then, in 2017, President of the Social Science Research Council.

Needless to say, ASA was delighted to report it when, in 2021, she was named by President Biden to be Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for Science and Society. OSTP plays an outsized role in setting science policy for the entire federal government. Her career was truly groundbreaking already, but the OSTP appointment was historic in many ways. Then, in 2022, she was named acting head of OSTP, “the first African American and first woman of color to lead US science and technology policy.” At which point — ASA said nothing. (I checked a few times to be sure, and find no announcement of this, not even in “Member News & Notes.”)

What happened? Long story short: ASA is fundamentally, strongly, consistently, organizationally, opposed to the crowning achievement of Nelson’s work at OSTP, known around the world as the “Nelson Memo.” It’s subject: “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research.” Which is exactly what ASA does not want.

These were Nelson’s stirring words — words that sent a shudder through the fancy glass of the ASA office suites on K Street:

A federal public access policy consistent with our values of equal opportunity must allow for broad and expeditious sharing of federally funded research—and must allow all Americans to benefit from the returns on our research and development investments without delay. Upholding these core U.S. principles in our public access policy also strengthens our ability to be a critical leader and partner on issues of open science around the world. The U.S. is committed to the ideas that openness in science is fundamental, security is essential, and freedom and integrity are crucial. Improving public access policies across the U.S. government to promote the rapid sharing of federally funded research data with appropriate protections and accountability measures will allow for greater validity of research results and more equitable access to data resources aligned with these ideals. To promote equity and advance the work of restoring the public’s trust in Government science, and to advance American scientific leadership, now is the time to amend federal policy to deliver immediate public access to federally funded research.

How much does ASA not want this? The association’s dogged lobbying on this issue reached its zenith with what I call the 2019 “Dear President Trump” letter. This letter, signed by ASA (no individual named) and many other paywall-dependent academic societies, urged Trump not to open science. At the time, there was a rumor that OSTP would require agencies to make public the results of research funded by the federal government without a 12-month delay — the cherished “embargo” that allowed these associations to profit from delaying access to public knowledge, which Nelson eventually lifted.

They wrote: “We are writing to express our concerns about a possible change in federal policies that could significantly threaten a vibrant American scientific enterprise.” That is, by requiring free access to research, OSTP would threaten the “financial stability that enables us to support peer review that ensures the quality and integrity of the research enterprise.” If ASA lost their journal subscription profits, in other words, American science would die. “To take action to shorten the 12-month embargo… risks the continued international leadership for the U.S. scientific enterprise.” The embargo pays for K Street.

Despite a petition signed by many ASA members, and a resolution from its own Committee on Publications “to express opposition to the decision by the ASA to sign the December 18, 2019 letter” — which the ASA leadership never even publicly acknowledged — ASA has not uttered a word to alter its anachronistic and unpopular position. While public-minded leaders throughout the scientific community sing the praises of this policy, ASA remains obnoxiously silent. The organization proudly lists more than 200 public statements on matters of public policy — from same-sex marriage to affirmative action, Ukraine to the NSF budget — but when it comes to public access to science, dead silence.

There’s more

As I write, the Republican’s House of Representatives has produced an appropriations bill that specifically block any funding to implement the OSTP policy. It reads:

SEC. 552. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry out the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s August 25, 2022, Memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies entitled, ‘‘Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research.”

Why would they do this? It’s possible they were just really persuaded by the ASA et al. letter denouncing public access to science. But more realistically, the only explanation I have heard is that the OSTP policy talks about promoting diversity and equity. (The bill will have to make it through Congress, and is likely not to survive in this form, but who knows what negotiations will end up with.)

Where is ASA? Republicans are conniving to undermine the amazing accomplishment of Nelson and the OSTP, to deny public access to science, and ASA won’t bring itself to raise a whisper of objection.

Alondra Nelson and the OSTP say public access to federally funded research is vital for equitable access to the broad benefits of scientific research. These are goals the Republicans in Congress — and, by its actions, ASA — just can’t abide. Bedfellows indeed.

I quit ASA two years ago over this and related issues, so I am in no position to recommend action by its members. I don’t advise struggling with them over it. The organization is a perpetual stagnation machine addicted to a toxic diet of publishing rents, and very unlikely to change before it finishes collapsing. But if you are working in the organization, I hope you will pay attention to this issue.

My writing about ASA is all here.