| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:15 am Post subject: Academic publishers become enemies of science |
 |
|
Academic publishers have become the enemies of science
The US Research Works Act would allow publishers to line their pockets by locking publicly funded research behind paywalls.
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 January 2012 12.13 GMT
The free dissemination of lifesaving medical research around the world would be prevented under the Research Works Act.
This is the moment academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists. Their rhetoric has traditionally been of partnering with scientists, but the truth is that for some time now scientific publishers have been anti-science and anti-publication. The Research Works Act, introduced in the US Congress on 16 December, amounts to a declaration of war by the publishers.
The USA's main funding agency for health-related research is the National Institutes of Health, with a $30bn annual budget. The NIH has a public access policy that says taxpayer-funded research must be freely accessible online. This means that members of the public, having paid once to have the research done, don't have to pay for it again when they read it � a wholly reasonable policy, and one with enormous humanitarian implications because it means the results of medical research are made freely available around the world... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Academic publishers become enemies of science |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| ... for some time now scientific publishers have been anti-science and anti-publication. |
This statement seems contradictory. Why would a publisher be anti-publication?
Is it anti-science or pro-profits?
Just asking, not saying I agree with the policy.
Reading the title of the thread made me think it would be related to how the Texas school board tried to edit science books in favor of creationism...er..I mean "intelligent" design. Now that was anti-science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ Publishers cannot be said to favor science if they put profits first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| ^ Publishers cannot be said to favor science if they put profits first. |
What do you think of the contention that the maximization of profits leads to the greatest overall benefit to society as a whole? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| What do you think of the contention that the maximization of profits leads to the greatest overall benefit to society as a whole? |
Lehman Brothers
Crash of 2008
Credit crunch
are 3 of the first that come to mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you ever done research and found yourself looking for an article that you don't have free access to? I have many times over. I end up looking for articles that quotes them in order to get an idea of their content.
At 33$ for a 20 page article, publishers are definitely anti-science. Those prices effectively restricts the information contained within. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Have you ever done research and found yourself looking for an article that you don't have free access to? I have many times over. I end up looking for articles that quotes them in order to get an idea of their content.
At 33$ for a 20 page article, publishers are definitely anti-science. Those prices effectively restricts the information contained within. |
Right. Its about the prices they offer. I realize these studies are expensive, and like textbooks, the interested market is small. But like textbooks, these studies are so very, very expensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Have you ever done research and found yourself looking for an article that you don't have free access to? I have many times over. I end up looking for articles that quotes them in order to get an idea of their content.
At 33$ for a 20 page article, publishers are definitely anti-science. Those prices effectively restricts the information contained within. |
Right. Its about the prices they offer. I realize these studies are expensive, and like textbooks, the interested market is small. But like textbooks, these studies are so very, very expensive. |
You seem to be missing the point. The fact that these studies are so very very expensive is irrelevant, since the studies in question have already been paid for by the National institute of health. The cost of making the studies available on line is virtually nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Have you ever done research and found yourself looking for an article that you don't have free access to? I have many times over. I end up looking for articles that quotes them in order to get an idea of their content.
At 33$ for a 20 page article, publishers are definitely anti-science. Those prices effectively restricts the information contained within. |
Right. Its about the prices they offer. I realize these studies are expensive, and like textbooks, the interested market is small. But like textbooks, these studies are so very, very expensive. |
You seem to be missing the point. The fact that these studies are so very very expensive is irrelevant, since the studies in question have already been paid for by the National institute of health. The cost of making the studies available on line is virtually nothing. |
My point is that the studies should be cheaper, whether or not they are subsidized or have to be paid for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| What do you think of the contention that the maximization of profits leads to the greatest overall benefit to society as a whole? |
Lehman Brothers
Crash of 2008
Credit crunch
are 3 of the first that come to mind. |
I, too, think the contention is bollocks. Our very habitat is being destroyed out of a need for ever increasing profits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
Have you ever done research and found yourself looking for an article that you don't have free access to? I have many times over. I end up looking for articles that quotes them in order to get an idea of their content.
At 33$ for a 20 page article, publishers are definitely anti-science. Those prices effectively restricts the information contained within. |
Right. Its about the prices they offer. I realize these studies are expensive, and like textbooks, the interested market is small. But like textbooks, these studies are so very, very expensive. |
You seem to be missing the point. The fact that these studies are so very very expensive is irrelevant, since the studies in question have already been paid for by the National institute of health. The cost of making the studies available on line is virtually nothing. |
Actually, there's more to it than that. Most researchers work at universities or companies which receive tax breaks and government subsidies. So, in a sense, most research is publicly funded one way or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| What do you think of the contention that the maximization of profits leads to the greatest overall benefit to society as a whole? |
Lehman Brothers
Crash of 2008
Credit crunch
are 3 of the first that come to mind. |
I, too, think the contention is bollocks. Our very habitat is being destroyed out of a need for ever increasing profits. |
But isn't that the contention made by the adherents of the free market capitalism religion such as Mitt Romney , Ron Paul and others? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| But isn't that the contention made by the adherents of the free market capitalism religion such as Mitt Romney , Ron Paul and others? |
Mitt Romney is not an adherent of free-market capitalism. How many times do you need to have the difference between crony corporatist/monopoly capitalism and the free market explained to you? It's really not that hard to understand.
Nor is free market capitalism predicated on ever increasing profits. That is a symptom of ponzi-scheme economics (ie. fractional reserve, debt-based, inflationary central banking). In a free market, you can have sustainable consumption and even sustained periods of deflation, and it would still be a good thing (since it would come from increased competition in the market, and not just from loss of confidence due to speculation causing bubbles to burst). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
