> The potential charge against open archives of using public money to
compete
> with private enterprise is an interesting one in the context of science
> publishing.
>
> A major proportion of scientific research (most, actually) is funded out
of
> the public purse.
I question this assertion. Do you have any numbers to back it up? It may be true that public money funds most PURE research, but if one considers applied research and new product development, which very well might lead to new science, I am not sure that you are correct.
> Shouldn't the results be made available to the very public
> that paid for it? What intrinsic exclusive right does any private
enterprise
> have to the material? It has only been granted that right by the author,
by
> means of transferring copyright or granting an exclusive licence to
publish.
> Should authors not be prevented from thus 'locking up' research results
> obtained by scientific experiments with the help of public money?
Shouldn't
> publication of results be seen as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the
> research itself? After all, the research is probably not even deemed to
have
> taken place if the results are not published.
The problem is that turning research into product typically requires additional funding and additional R&D. Thus, a major incentive to market new products is lost of the rights go to anybody who wants them. Further, the private actor often contributes some of its own money too. How to separate that out? However, I do disagree with public funding of drug research, for example, without some public right to cheaper drugs.
-Bodi Received on Sat Apr 19 2003 - 07:00:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT