Take it all for a yes, and on to Q.2a.

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

I didn't mean it to be a mental exercise.  The point was to determine if
we all agree that OA is desirable.  In the past, on this list and
elsewhere, people have made the argument that it is not needed -- we have
all the information we need, or the general public would be hurt by too
much information;we need to edit for them., etc. It has struck me and
others, that these didn't make sense, or were compromised by conflicts of
interest.  I asked originally whether any of these arguments made sense
except for people who stood to gain from maintaining the current system
and what argument against OA's desirability.  The idea is that you can't
ask about feasibility, unless you know whether you want to do it.

It thought it was pretty simple idea.  Should we build an atomic bomb,
should we have the bathroom redone, etc.?  Once you know whether you want
to do it, you can ask how much it costs or how hard it is to do or whether
it is even possible, but first you have to know if you want to do it.  A
what if question, if you like,or as Nietzsche put it: we can do with any
how if we have a why. The fact that hardly anybody wanted to play and
insisted that I cannot even pose the question, and that it is in the
ballpark with world peace and end to world hunger, suggests we all agree
it is desirable to have OA.  So, I will take if for a yes.  Now we can go
on to Q.2

Q. 2. Richard Roberts, among others, has suggested that the money
currently spent on publishing only needs to be re-directed towards OA.
Now, since everybody seems to agree that author-pays means largely
author's grant-pays and since NIH is most accessible and major funder in
biomedicinee:
2a. Is it possible to find out how what per centage of the NIH research
grants go for author page charges, subscriptions, if anybody still buys
reprints and other costs that are directed to publishing?


Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry
(718) 871-1374
FAX: (718) 270-3316