November 29, 2006

David A. Schwartz, M.D.
cc: Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.

cc: Sen. Barbara Boxer
cc: Sen. Tom Harkin
cc: Rep. Nita Lowey
cc: Rep. Hilda L. Solis
cc: Rep. John D. Dingell
(others)

Dear Dr. Schwartz,

We are writing to express our deep concern about your current plans 
for the NIEHS flagship journal Environmental Health Perspectives 
(EHP). In its current form, this magazine is one of the key jewels 
in the crown of NIEHS' reputation for excellence, and one of the 
key instruments by which the United States demonstrates world 
leadership in environmental health research. We feel that your 
current outsourcing plan will gravely harm not only the magazine, 
but the reputation of NIEHS and the quality of environmental health 
information available to the American public.

The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) is the world's largest 
and oldest organization of individual working journalists covering 
environmental issues. Founded in 1990, SEJ consists of journalists, 
educators, and students dedicated to improving the quality, accuracy, 
and visibility of environmental reporting. Working through its First 
Amendment Task Force and WatchDog Program, SEJ addresses freedom of 
information, right-to-know, and other news-gathering issues of concern 
to journalists reporting on environmental topics.

Our interest in this issue centers mainly on public access to information.  
Not only does EHP publish cutting-edge research on topics of immediate 
timeliness and relevance, but it also makes this information accessible 
to U.S. and world audiences in a way unequalled by almost any scientific 
publication. It does this in two ways. First, it "translates" -- not 
only from technical language to lay language via its News section, but 
also from English to languages such as Chinese, spoken by billions 
worldwide. Second, it models an "open access" publishing method that 
sets a benchmark for many other publications that communicate science 
in the public interest.

This accessibility is precisely what will be lost if you go ahead 
with your plans.

Cutting the revenues the publication receives from NIEHS, while 
outsourcing it at the same time, would virtually force any contractor 
to abandon the open-access business model and charge for the online 
access which makes EHP quickly and easily available all over the world. 
While NIEHS might save a few dollars with this approach, it would 
certainly be losing many thousands of readers. It seems penny-wise 
and pound-foolish, since the total amount NIEHS spends on EHP is scarcely 
half of one percent of its annual budget. That seems like a small 
investment if it helps ensure that the research funded by the bulk of 
NIEHS' budget reaches the people in the public health arena who can apply 
it to benefit the U.S. and world populations.

Your decision seems to fly in the face of the comments you received 
following your Sept. 19, 2005, Federal Register notice. Some 94 percent 
of those comments opposed "privatization," according to an analysis by 
Environmental Science & Technology (April 5, 2006). Your press 
announcement of June 28, 2006, made it appear that you had abandoned 
privatization plans -- yet the exact opposite seems to us to be 
actually the case. If the course of action described in your October 
12, 2006, Request for Proposals does not amount to privatization, we 
are hard put to know what would. 

We urge you to reconsider the decision to outsource EHP and cut its 
budget. To go forward on this course would be effectively to destroy 
an excellent magazine and to replace it with a different one of far 
less value to NIEHS and the U.S. public. We hope that you will instead 
maintain staffing and budget at roughly their current levels. 

Sincerely,

Tim Wheeler, President, SEJ

Ken Ward Jr., Chair, SEJ First Amendment Task Force

Robert McClure, SEJ Board First Amendment Liaison

Joseph A. Davis, Ph.D., Director, SEJ WatchDog Project