Re: Q 1. on OA

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

The advocacy in which associations engage is not typically of the 
"Abramoff" variety. It is usually for causes that do benefit 
science and medicine--for example, increasing the budget of NIH, 
expanding health coverage from Americans, or supporting stem cell 
research.

On 6/19/06 7:43 PM, "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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