It seems only fair, especially in this world where reckless pursuit of
self-interests by a powerful cast of lobbyists dominates, that we scientists
express also in our civic role what our view is regarding science funding.
It seems odd that 25 Nobel prize laureates and many institutions would lend
their name for an initiative (
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/bof.html)of
whose mission they are not fully convinced about. If the publishers concerns
about quality would be such a strong argument, scientists certainly would
not get involved I an obvious act of self-destruction.
Commercial publisher's main goal ought to be optimizing their profits and
share holder values. Hiring thus a PR agent has by nature a very different
motivation to the one driving the above mentioned scientists. This is
obvious in publisher's argument for keeping a status quo, since their
understanding and future of the product (i.e. publications for science
communication) differs so much from those of the actual producers, the
scientists.
Donat Agosti
Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 11:20:28 GMT