GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Online federal library on health research sparks outcry

• 6180
  

  It seems a bit disingenuous that researchers or those that purport to represent the research community would raise the specter of censorship. It is a matter of the public having access to what it pays for! The public has already paid for it once, why should it have to pay for it again. Using the highly charged "B" word (B = Bureaucrats) is saying the Academic community and Publishers don't have an equivalent, they do. Public funded research should be made available to the public at no cost. Note: Unless its security is vital to our national interest. Free the Information!

  James N. Phillips Jr. Posted September 13, 2004 12:53 PM
• 6179
  

  This is an important and interesting question. In my view scientific and technological advancement is the engine that drives our economy. The government should do all it can to promote the free exchange of knowledge and information in this area. We also need to determine how to best deliver the benefits of science to the American people. Should Govt's subsidize or grant tax breaks to scientific publishers, conditioned upon keeping the cost of publications low? I don't want to see any scientist denied the information he or she needs to make a discovery because they can't affort some subscription. Can publishers do this distribution and dissemination task better than government bureacrats? Should the University and Academic community be the vehicle for distribution of this data at low or no cost in order to get it to reseachers, and keep big industry from locking it up for profit motives. How do we keep hostile nationals and nations, terrorists and others from gaining access to this data to potentially harm the US with it.

  The low cost of publishing using electronic media ought to keep these prices low. There are few methods of distribution that are so effective and low cost as use of digital media.

  Some method of avoiding the publication of "group think", croneyism, undue deference to the established scientific community must also be considered. Truly innovative breakthroughts are seldom the product of convention thinking about a subject, as much of the history of science demonstrates. Many publishers will only print research work by "established scientists" or "known reseachers" . We need room for the new blood and fresh ideas of newerless established, or conventional, scientists as well.

  There are many areas where it could be argued the Gov't/public should be provided a set or copy of the information or data for the public domaine, and the benefit of the public. What about a national center/libary for GIS "data sets" so these don't need to be re-created or purchased, at great expense, each time they are needed.

  Kevin Myles Posted September 13, 2004 11:45 AM
• 6090
  

  My first comment was not complete.

  Ms. Schroeder protests at the loss of her "free lunch" by invoking the provocative "C" word, censorship. ("A government-operated repository raises the specter of government censorship and encroachment upon scholarly discourse," she wrote.)

  In fact, what she is advocating is the continued censorship of this material (unless we pay her member publishers) from the people who paid for the research to be done and reported.

  David Donnell Posted September 7, 2004 9:46 AM