Re: Health Information Needs

[Kent Mulliner <mulliner@ohio.edu>]

I find that myself in disagreement with Richard Feinman and Tony McSean as
to the necessity of mediation.  As a librarian, I thought of the
profession as gate openers, not gate keepers--especially with the
expansion of electronic resources, and a reason why I championed the "big
deal."  While many may need or prefer mediation is not disputed, rather
why does everyone need to be mediated?  I earlier referred to substantial
efforts to lead prostate cancer patients to original research (especially
as the fundamental treament protocol relies on an informed decision by the
patient--and health care providers in this area strongly tend to recommend
their particular modalities--a bias that access to actual research affords
an alternative).

To me, mediation is like sitting on the beach and introducing people to
the ocean by offering them a tablespoon of sea water.  In opposition to
Fineman, I especially think that the primary justification for NIH support
of open access is the public's right to know.  We paid for the research
and have a right to know what was found.  Other than from an intellectual
perspective, I see no comparable basis for insisting that research results
be shared only with other researchers.

Kent Mulliner        Phone: 740-742-2650
Rutland, OH 45775-9675
mulliner@ohio.edu


Quoting Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>:

   [snip]

> I think that the major argument for OA, made in this listserv before, is
> that researchers need access -- and need to be accessed.  Patients will
> benefit from increased communication between scientists but it seems
> claiming that patients need it directly is not really up front.  It has
> always seemed to me that it was a political tactic and since it can be
> effectively answered as below, it doesn't seem like a good tactic.
> 
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Richard D. Feinman
> Department of Biochemistry
> SUNY Downstate Medical Center
> ______________________________
> 
> "Mcsean, Tony (ELS)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>
> Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> 07/26/05 05:57 PM
> 
> [snip]
> 

> What we need to recognise as publishers and librarians is that whatever
> a lay person's medical information needs, to satisfy them effectively
> and in a reasonable time they are going to need the intervention of an
> information professional of some sort to make sense of what's out there
> and to sort the science from the pyramidology.  This in turn plugs them
> into on-site access (and it is a rare and grim medical librarian who
> turns someone away in these circumstances whatever the Library Rules
> might say) and to the highly effective ILL network. In my view OA in all
> its forms is peripheral to this process and that the real every day
> supporting work is done by those who work in patient self-help groups
> and in specifically patient-oriented information services such as the
> UK's Help For Health and its giant offspring NHS Direct Online.
> 
> Tony McSean Director of Library Relations Elsevier