Posted on 01/27/2007 1:44:03 AM PST by neverdem
Not counting DaVinci in the 15th Century.
Well, one usually can get any open literature [even if with a delay in interlibrary loan]. The trouble lies more in comprehending and filtering the information [for most of it is irrelevant garbage], than in getting access to it. As a Chinese prince said some 3 millenia ago to one of his councillors, "to understand this", he said with a sigh, "is not given to you". And the struggle against the limits of one's own understanding is much harder than against any imperfect library system.
This is one of those issues that will receive proportionally less attention than it deserves. It brings up broader important issues, too. For example, what's the role of public funding for science?
Although a kneejerk reaction might be that science should be privately funded, a moment's consideration shows how important public funding has been at providing a balance to biased study as well as funding basic research that's not immediately patentable or profitable. The unintended consequences loom large on this issue.
But I would have to wonder how much unintentional duplicate research this would cut down on. Uncle Sam doles out with a sloppy hand, if he can't even tell who was actually in the Katrina flood vs. who is a crafty grifter, how is he going to tell if 10 scientists paid from the public purse are doing the exact same thing one after the other in ignorance of one another. In the end it's the golden rule: whoever passes out the gold makes the rules.
" public funding has been at providing a balance to biased study "
Would that 'twere so!!
Biased gummint-funded "research" has been handed down as gospel - and been the basis for a lot of bad legislation - on subjects such as "global warming", "secondhand smoke", and virtually every sociological/psychological "study" in the past 50 years.
Sorry -- public funding of research has no better track record, in the realm of 'bias', than any other source of funding.
Sorry, but you're using poor logic.
I stated that it has provided a balance to biased study (e.g., pharmaceuticals)... I never stated that it will do so in all cases. That's part of my point of why it's easy to kneejerk the opposite way--there are examples of very poor uses of public fnding. Same goes for public funding of art--we hear lots of horror stories, but (like with Iraq) there are many "silent successes."
The real question is how to set up a system that allocates public funding in the best interest of the public...and since the public's "best interest" is disparate by nature, this is not simple. Personally, I would like to see the rest of the world pick up more of the burden of basic research to allow more of American funding to go toward development-phase work.
Interesting that the news headline I saw just before reading this article was...
Intel, IBM separately reveal transistor breakthrough
Sometimes duplicate research is a good thing, though...e.g., it can provide confirmation of a principle, or it can provide a different solution approach to the same problem.
" Sorry, but you're using poor logic. "
I'm not going to get into a personal-attack-flame-battle with you...
You apparently believe that government is benevolent and even-handed. (And that 'private' is not)
I don't....
I'm willing to agree to disagree....
SHARING WITH THE CHINESE
Like Hillery Clinton said:" It takes a Village!"
America is at an economic disadvantage with China, and now we soon will be at a military disadvantage.
Open Access to Science is just another liberal whacko scheme to destroy the military industrial complex of the West, so we can live in peace in a little Utopia doomed to sure failure.
Result: The West Coast will be the New Peoples Republic of China, and the Eastt Coast will be the New England Caliphate of Al Ramana.
Liberal socialist scientists make me puke, always have.
Even The Weather Channel's Dr Heidi Felice wants to expel members who disagree with her about global warming.
.
Its like you say, there is a gauze of ignorance over the realities of many, realities in which empirical data which does not fit with ones paradigm are censored.Global Warming advocates do not exercise science, they exercise religion.
Scientists think they can exist without being political, which means their findings are open to totalitarian governments.
The world has become a very strange place. I am digging a cave in my back yard, hoping it all blows over. I believe this ignorance is a sign of the Baby Boomer liberals wanting to live forever but realizing that in their later years they need to make their heaven here on earth, any way they can. A spiritually and politically bankrupt generation.
Like the old joke says"... we've already determined what you are, now we're just negotiating on the price." If the government is funding the research it is already socialized science. If you want to keep your research private or limit its release, then privately fund it yourself or come to a contract with a private grantor or investor. If you want to research on the public dime, then that research (and the patents associated with it) should be freely released. Don't make me pay for it and then expect to privately profit from it.
Malarkey. Science only works because of its relative "open-ness". Without publication and later duplication by other workers of scientific experiments, science simply will not progress. We tried the "non-open" system back in the days of the alchemists--and it was a disaster. Results kept secret died with the originators unless passed on to an apprentice. This is also the reason for the existence of the patent and copyright processes.
I think the "Amazon model" would work for ALL scientific publication. Accept the paper after editorial review (NOT, note, "peer review"), invite a couple of anonymous reviewers, post the paper AND the anonymous reviews on "journal website", and then let ANYONE post further "reviews" (sort of analogous to the existing Free Republic process with the addition of the "official" anonymous reviews).
Pay for it with Google-style advertising links.
Well said. You are absolutely right.
Researchers and publishers cannot reasonably insist that government funding of research is necessary for the public good, then turn around and charge the public high prices for access to the fruits of that research.
I like the idea.
Especially intriguing is your suggestion of dispensing with prepublication peer review. I have seen too many cases where peer review has been used to stifle competition, whether it be in the granting of funds or in the selection of papers for publication. In government-funded science, it matters very much who you are, where you work, and whom you know.
Well, it would still get "peer-reviewed"--but that would happen post-publication, and by a far wider range of viewers with a correspondingly wide range of expertise, so the scientific integrity of the overall process would remain at least as good as it is now (and probably be FAR better).
It WOULD curtail the use of peer review as a "gateway" process by jealous colleagues and/or competitors, as you so rightly mention. The editor could still get away with it, but nobody else.
"In government-funded science, it matters very much who you are, where you work, and whom you know."
Oh, brother--ain't THAT the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.