Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Almighty Buck United States Science

US Research Open Access In Peril 237

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by ironjaw33 ( 1645357 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @07:49PM (#38657934)
    With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves. There have already been a few discussions on here about some of the better known US schools mandating that all research be published in open conferences/journals. At the last conference I attended, there was a business meeting where it was discussed that we can (and should) attach copyright waivers to the standard ACM copyright form so that we retain copyright of our work and are free to distribute it.
  • Re:dufus decisions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gatkinso ( 15975 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:20PM (#38658236)

    Greed is what inspired the US to be great.

    Moderating that greed is what actually makes us great.

    We need greed, as sad as that is.

  • by Caerdwyn ( 829058 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:32PM (#38658346) Journal

    If we outlaw corporate contributions to candidates, we must also outlaw:

    • union contributions (direct or indirect)
    • PAC contributions (ALL of them, including YOUR special interests)
    • national party committee spending (direct or indirect)
    • governmental agency lobbying
    • any financing originating outside the country

    The only source of campaign contributions should be registered voters, and capped. Corporations are not registered voters. Neither are unions, PACs, non-citizen immigrants (legal or otherwise), minors, felons (sorry, Wall Street, sorry, Earth First), or anything else. If you can't vote, why should you be allowed any other influence? That is a privilege reserved for citizens... it is what citizenship is all about. Yeah, sure, that means a whole lot less money floating around for propaganda, but is that bad? Why would replacing glitzy attack TV ads (expensive) with written position statements (cheap) be undesirable? And if someone isn't sufficiently motivated to open their wallets to support their candidates, fuck 'em. The lazy and apathetic will do what the motivated damned well tell them to (I'm looking at YOU, moderates, you lazy couch-dwelling motherfuckers. The national party committees, ALL of them, are owned by Constitution-hating would-be dictators because extremists are the only ones who give a damn enough to do anything other than whine, and the national committees are not about philosophy... they're about money.).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:40PM (#38658428)

    Good that you brought it up. Also note that Issa got money from the same group that gave Maloney hers.

    Ron Paul isn't my first choice for a candidate, but right now he's the only one guaranteed to shake things up enough for real change.

  • by trout007 ( 975317 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @08:43PM (#38658454)

    I work for the government and every once in a while my boss says I should try to patent it. I always refuse because my paycheck comes from the taxpayers so it should be freely available. I have never been able to find if there is an easy way to release my designs in an open way. I don't think the lawyers want to deal with it.

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

    by f97tosc ( 578893 ) on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @09:26PM (#38658854)

    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.

    What I find so strange is that so many people make this very argument, yet they still go out and vote for the same standard statist candidate. For example probably most tea partiers will vote for the republican nominee and most in the occupy movement will vote for Obama (even though he is the biggest recepient of Wall Street money and all his economic people are closely tied to Wall Street). If one really believes that the mainstream candidates are the same, then one realizes that it is much better to "waste" one's vote on an independent/smaller candidate. And if enough people do this then there will be real change.

  • by Grieviant ( 1598761 ) * on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @12:40AM (#38660238)
    'Non-profit' doesn't carry that much weight when a bunch of the employees are making exorbitant salaries in the $300K-$700K range (page 9 []).

%DCL-MEM-BAD, bad memory VMS-F-PDGERS, pudding between the ears