Les,
Does your last paragraph imply that you think that drug companies would
be AGAINST health if they argue that it wouldn't be a good idea if they
were required to make their drugs generic within six months after
bringing them to market?
Best,
Jan
----- Original Message ----
From: Leslie Carr <lac_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2007 9:52:03 PM
Subject: Re: The EC Petition and the EC Poll
On 14 Feb 2007, at 09:28, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:
> Asking if people are FOR or AGAINST open access is like asking if they
> are FOR or AGAINST good health. It would be, rightly, seen as
> astonishing if 14% were against.
>
> I guess that the question FOR or AGAINST the principle of open access,
> if asked of publishers, would get you a similar outcome and quite
> probably a better one (fewer than 14% against).
You don't need to guess - publishers frequently respond to the issue
of Open Access. Here's the latest answer addressed to Green OA, in
point 9 of the "Brussels Declaration on STM Publishing", released
yesterday (Feb 13th).
"Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilising
subscription revenues and undermining peer review." This is not a new
response, and it still does not count as a better outcome! Although I
am loath to use the health metaphor, it seems very like asking people
if they are FOR or AGAINST good health and having the pharmaceutical
industry answer "as long as it doesn't destabilise the drugs market".
---
Les Carr
Received on Sat Feb 24 2007 - 22:46:13 GMT