Re: Q 1. on OA

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

In fairness one should add at least one item to Peter's list of 
investments on the part of professional societies:  political 
lobbying.  Few do this, but it is not something that can 
comfortably be covered by the phrase "other activities that 
benefit science and medicine."

Joe Esposito

On 6/18/06, Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com> wrote:
>
> Only every society publisher. Obviously, societies are non profit
> and invest any net income in research, professional education,
> patient education, standards development, student training and
> development, and other activities that benefit science and
> medicine--far more than using the net income for OA ever would.
>
> Contrary to the perception that society publishing policies are
> dictated by staff publishers, they are in fact under the control
> of member researchers and physicians. OA advocates who are able
> to play well with others, as opposed to issuing press releases
> and declarations, might joint the leadership of societies and
> advance the OA cause. Of course, that would require flexibility
> and compromise, something notably lacking in the followers of the
> messianic brand of OA.
>
> Peter Banks
>
> On 6/16/06 8:24 PM, "Richard Feinman" <RFeinman@downstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Is there anyone who is opposed to OA who does not benefit financially
>> from the current system?
>>
>> Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry