Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck United States Science

US Research Open Access In Peril 237

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.
luceth writes "Several years ago, the U.S. National Institutes of Health instituted a policy whereby publications whose research was supported by federal funds were to be made freely accessible a year after publication. The rationale was that the public paid for the research in the first place. This policy is now threatened by legislation introduced by, you guessed it, a Congresswoman who is the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the scientific publishing industry. The full text of the bill, H.R. 3699, is available online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Research Open Access In Peril

Comments Filter:
  • dufus decisions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k6mfw (1182893) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @06:46PM (#38657898)
    Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.
  • by trunicated (1272370) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @06:47PM (#38657908)

    Color me shocked.

    This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment. However, since it would be Congress that would need to change those laws, it's never going to happen.

    Who watches the watchers, fox guard the henhouse, etc.

  • by headkase (533448) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @06:54PM (#38657988)
    I'm serious, why is it even legal for politicians to accept any kinds of money outside of their salary?! If that one thing was done - illegal to accept any outside money - then I'd optimistically predict that politics wouldn't be the sh*t-hole it is today.
  • by Zocalo (252965) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:02PM (#38658076) Homepage
    Check out the co-sponsor; it's none other than one Darrell Issa (R-CA). Yup, the same one that is opposed to SOPA and has proposed the alternative OPEN. Not so opposed to abuses of the copyright system, it appears... I now can't help but wonder whether OPEN was merely put forward as a Plan B just in case SOPA flounders in the light of all the negative publicity. Time to check the small print, me thinks.
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:05PM (#38658104)

    This will never change until lobbying and donations on a corporate scale are either severely limited or outright made illegal and enforced with harsh punishment.

    Thank all the gods that the Supreme Court figured out that campaign contributions don't "necessarily" buy politicians. Otherwise we might be tempted to jump to an uncharitable conclusion, in cases like this.

  • by ironjaw33 (1645357) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:11PM (#38658164)
    You don't seem to understand the wording of the bill. Federal agencies are barred from mandating open access policies -- in the context of TFA they are talking about funding bodies like the NIH which award grant money to other institutions who perform the research. This leaves the institutions receiving the grant money, usually universities which aren't attached to the federal government, free to do as they please. Lastly, publishers accept copyright waivers all the time, and some schools, like Princeton [princeton.edu], mandate that you submit one if the publisher wants to claim copyright. Some Commonwealth countries, like Australia, claim copyright on all publications their universities produce and submit these waivers with each publication.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:13PM (#38658186)
    Wow. You listed the Democratic cosponsor, but not the Republican sponsor. So much for exposing affiliations.
  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by causality (777677) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:21PM (#38658248)

    While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts.

    Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. Obama is a statist.

    Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government, nor does he view it as a deserving object of mistrust. He doesn't want legitimate matters of governance to be handled by the smallest and most local level of government that is able to manage them. He likes centralization for its own sake and accepts the regimentation that comes with it. He subscribes to the belief that people should be commanded and controlled rather than reasoned with, that they should not only tolerate this but also welcome it.

    He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.

    If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

    Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

    Like they said on Monty Python's Life of Brian, "blessed are those with a vested interest in the status quo."

  • by Local ID10T (790134) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:24PM (#38658266) Homepage

    Why are bribes even legal?

    Because the people accepting the bribes are the people deciding what is and is not legal.

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grygus (1143095) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:34PM (#38658366)

    I might agree with that. The problem would then be that we've dropped the moderation.

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:44PM (#38658464)
    Man, your elected representatives really seem to hate your country.
  • by SETIGuy (33768) * on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:49PM (#38658520) Homepage
    Like members of Congress care what someone with no money say. If you don't like what they do in office, they'll just spend their money convincing you that their opponent eats a live baby every Sunday. The system is to far past broken to fix. The only questions now are when it gets torn down and by whom.
  • by SETIGuy (33768) * on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:05PM (#38658630) Homepage
    No thanks, registered voters only. Having a pile of unnecessary kids should not get you extra political points.
  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:20PM (#38658792)

    You've asserted an interesting collection of terrible motives to the president with no supporting evidence. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and now we know yours.

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:1, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:36PM (#38658936)

    Rather than trying to comprehensively define subjective and inherently nebulous terms, I prefer to keep it simple. The parent poster, Causality, is a child rapist.

    Blah blah blah, baseless statements about his beliefs, blah blah, eloquent but unsupported assertions about his goals, yadda yadda, claim that anyone who really knows what's what would realize this, blah blah, end with with a Monty Python quote for bonus karma.

    Why don't you just repost that article from a while back that asserted, with the same lack of supporting evidence, that Obama is following the mentality of a Kenyan tribesman?

    Or, if you'd prefer to actually add to the discussion, come up with something, anything to support the assertion that Obama is knowingly causing harm with the end goal of a state-run utopia. His opposition to single payer health care, among many, many other things, seems to fly in the face of this.

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @09:05PM (#38659200)
    What do the Founding Fathers have to do with it? Is the country supposed to remain exactly the same even if a large part of the population no longer agrees with a 55 guys that have been dead for nearly 200 years and chief complaint was the accessibility of horse and buggy parking in front of the local dry goods store?

    Times change. Before telecommunications/airplanes breaking things down to the lowest level made sense on an efficiency grounds: a large amount of resources had to be spent to move things around/get decisions from the central government to Nevada by buggy. That isn't the problem anymore. I'm not saying central govenment is always efficient but it can be. Some things make sense on a country wide basis: education standards, labor law, criminal law etc. People have a fundamental right to these services/consistency of expectations of what they can and can't do and they shouldn't be different from one area to another because the local county voted on spending the money on a new water fountain in front of town hall or the mayor happens to be religion X and is opposed to evolution on personal grounds so says that the vast majority of scientists opinions shouldn't be heard in science class.

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Curunir_wolf (588405) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @11:06PM (#38660066) Homepage Journal

    Is the country supposed to remain exactly the same even if a large part of the population no longer agrees with a 55 guys that have been dead for nearly 200 years and chief complaint was the accessibility of horse and buggy parking in front of the local dry goods store?

    What is this kind of asinine hyperbole supposed to signify? Oh, that we're backwards because our Constitution is outdated and doesn't recognize your right to health care, filet mignot, and a new smart phone every year? Since you seem to have forgotten what the grievances were that prompted people to go to war to oust their leaders from power, I'll remind you:

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of thes

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @11:42PM (#38660252)

    He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.

    OK, now you are just parroting Rush Limbaugh, and every other right-wing conspiracy theorist out there. You apparently know the president really fucking well, don't you? Seriously, that's the best criticism you can offer us? You don't realize Obama has given your right-wing congress everything they have ever wanted and more? You don't realize he is as right wing as you are? Jesus fucking christ, you are a demagogue -- your religion may be American conservativism, but that doesn't mean everyone in America thinks of their politics as a religion the way you do, and that is probably true of the president as well.

    If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.

    I can sympathize with this point, but really, it is just another conspiracy theory. It's just stupid to think Obama is just some fascist emperor who is doing everything he can to attain power. That's just what Limbaugh and his ilk want you to believe. As if all of our problems are so fucking simple that it boils down to evil guys being in power, and that's the root of the probelm. That's bullshit and you ought to know better.

    Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.

    I agree with this 100%, but do you even agree with youreslf and what you are saying here? Would you apply this same logic to all the right-wing elitists you have ever voted for? Don't be naive, seriously, you have described here not just the majority of all democrats, but every Replublican candidate you have ever voted for. Why don't you vote for someone else for a change, like Ron Paul. Believe it or not, even the progressive Liberals are fighting on the right side of issues that you care about, just give them a chance. I really think you and I are not so terribly different, but I do think you are totally deluded. Stop listening to the right-wing propaganda machine and think for yourself.

  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Deus.1.01 (946808) on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @01:10AM (#38660686) Journal

    Oh god, where to begin.
    Firstly, Marxism by itself is strictly a theoretical school, Marx used it to conclude things was fucked and to devise a solution which was the communist manifsto(the ideology).
    The main point of communism was the absolution of the state, when workers could organize the manufacturing and distribution of goods without one group/actors gaining leverage over the other(the point of the classless society).

    Amiable goal but the means to reach it the way Marxism foresaw was just plain wrong.

    Same thing with Mussolinis pet economical theories, Italy never had what mussolini intended, what were suppose to be a bunch of autonomus syndicates with worker and business cooperation with the state as mediator turned into the backers from finance and industry community saying, "fuck that shit go smash some commies and bust up the unions".
    Fascism's traits have never been defined by their economic theories, when they began as early movements they marked it as a third-way but was quickly abandoned once people supported them to fight the communists, having their own theories of social justice was a liability they got rid of.

    Its just plain stupid to define fascism by focusing on a single quote from Mussolini, while ignoring the Irredentism and Nationalist identity and norms everyone had to comply to.

    They were not liberal free markets, nor socialist planned economies, they were just a variation of mixed economies.

    Which we have ALLWAYS had.

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...