[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Access
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Access
- From: Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:59:25 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
First, let me correct what I think is a misinterpretation of my point made by Kent Mulliner. 1. I did not say (or believe in any way) that "research results should be shared only with other researchers." 2. I think research results should be available to all. I agree with "the public's right to know." 3. All I meant was that, in practice, my (anecdotal) perception was that the public was not generally crying out for original research but progress in science was slowed by poor access. I may be wrong on this and a recent post had the far out idea of actually trying to get the data. 4. On reflection, I think it may not be numbers. If even a few patients want original data that probably takes precedence over researchers' convenience. So, maybe this should be part of the case for OA after all. The alternative is to let Peter Banks decide who needs access to what. 5. I certainly don't believe "everyone needs to be mediated." Just the opposite. I agree with David Goodman there is a need for increased information at all levels. The ADA site, however, is exemplary only if you agree with their position on all things. In nutrition, there is scientific controversy. You could not tell from the ADA site that there was another side to the story. Arora's article in Nutrition & Metabolism, for example, presents this side of it. I am not saying Arora is right and they are wrong but McFarlane, the senior author is a respected endocrinologist and therefore should be taken seriously. The ADA, however, tends to ignore or dismiss any strategy involving severe carbohydrate restriction. This makes it hard to train library students to know what a reliable source is, and with respect to the original point, gives the impression that if you are a patient, you don't need to go to original sources. Even if you did, and wrote to their Q&A site that you saw a study by Yancy, et al. that showed patients on a very low carbohydrate diet were able to come off medication, you would be unlikely to get any support. This is the only part of ADA that I know, and their intransigence on nutritional issues, in my view, severely compromises the good work they do in other areas. 6. For the record, I followed Peter Banks's suggestion to look at their website. There are, in fact, several links to original research. For the link Peter recommended it is not all open, however. Only 4 of the first 10 articles are available without charge. The other 6 would cost $ 142 to download. Arora's review, however, is open access and raises important questions that you can always go back and check on the ADA site. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Richard D. Feinman Department of Biochemistry SUNY Downstate Medical Center Brooklyn, NY 11203
- Prev by Date: Re: Health Information Needs
- Next by Date: Emerald News. Henry Stewart Titles Acquired
- Previous by thread: RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- Next by thread: Re: Access
- Index(es):