Re: PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access: excerpts from article in Nature Magazine

From: Leslie Chan <chan_at_utsc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:49:01 -0500

David,
I agree completely that trading rhetoric arguments with no data is
counterproductive and unscientific. We shall refrain.

But we did not suggest that OA would lead to major scientific
breakthroughs like the cure for AIDS/HIV or cancer. We simply suggest that
scientists do research in order to solve basic as well as pressing
problems, and are neither motivated by nor concern with publishing
profits. Scientists are also motivated by research impact, something
funders are also concern with.

We were also reacting to the so-called "welfare programs" or
"philanthropic" journal access programs for developing countries that
often masquerade as "open access". These programs are not serving the
needs of researchers in developing countries as true OA could, but local
publishers and researchers in many parts of the world are still poorly
informed about OA, and are often greeted with misinformation.

We now live in a highly fragmented world where research findings are
highly scattered and highly uneven in terms of accessibility. What would a
true OA world be like and where would be the next big scientific
breakthroughs be coming from, that's anybody's guess. But the huge
potential that OA opens up and the relatively little effort and money that
could make that happen is sure worth striving for. And I could not agree
with you more that the

> spread of knowledge outside the elite academic world & the motivation of
> people to support science and enter scientific careers will be the
> true long term benefit.

Best wishes
Leslie
Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 12:53:46 GMT