Science and Inquiry discussion

Interesting Reuters article. I don't understand all the references and probably not all the issues, but it sounds like this is something that should be getting some discussion, and not just in the scientific community. I understand the need for rigorous peer review and certain controls, but is he saying that even after research has been published it's not available to other researchers?

I don't think he's saying exactly that - but I'm not sure. I've sometimes wanted a lab and a white coat - but after reading this article I guess maybe not... Do any of you other members know enough background to help us understand these issues better?

Betsy, I don't believe that he is saying that the research is not available to other researchers. If so, that's just wrong, because I know that you can always ask someone for a reprint of their paper and can usually get it.

It sounds to me like the columnist is addressing the challenges we might face if trying to gain access to a published paper online. Without a subscription, JSTOR and others only let you see the abstract online. However, many libraries and universities pay for these services and make them available to users. So why steal it from JSTOR . . . in this case, to make a point as an activist for "open access" to published scholarly literature.

I've not followed the "open access" issue, but I can understand where the columnist is coming from about the political/academic influence. He says "The editorial power held by journals and those that run them (quite different from those that own them) shapes most academic careers and the very structure of disciplines."

This reminds me of a scandal a few years ago regarding a grad student of OSU publishing research findings about salvage logging in the journal Science. Oregon State University's Dean of Forestry and several other professors actually requested that the journal not publish the peer-reviewed and accepted paper (hmm . . corporate support from the timber industry for the Forestry Department).

Caveat: I'm no expert on any of this as I have no affiliation with academia or publishing. So all of the above is based solely on my personal interpretation and experiences..

Thanks, Melissa, that helps me understand a little better.

Tx Melissa - what you say seems to make sense with what I read. So, the situation is probably not quite as bad, in most cases, as it was painted by the article, but there are still issues of concern.

Really? I helped you understand? Thanks to both of you for slogging through that long post!

Maybe it is almost as bad as the article, who knows. I see it like everything else in this little world, money is power over most everything. Its too bad that funding sources have such influence not only over our political systems, but also over our research programs and academic institutions.

Hmm... But as you say, money is power everywhere. It's a fact of life, and therefore not something we can say is horrible, but something to be worked with, or around. We can work to make it less powerful, but it'd be a wasted effort to whine about it, or to try to be a radical activist trying to make the institutions pure, because human nature decrees that wealth has influence.

At least, I think it does. I wonder if there are popular science psychology books that anyone in this group has read that discuss the issue....

My post might be fuzzy. It's my first one of the morning and I've had only one sip of coffee so far. :)

Cheryl:

"Money is power everywhere." Many people seem to have a problem with money, or the concept of money representing power, or its connection with evil. If you understand evolution, you can apply the theories of evolution to the concept of money. Money evolved out of the barter system, and made it easier for buyers and sellers to engage in trade. Once money became commonplace, it joined all the other features of life in competition with them. If you resent money, you might as well resent disease, which competes with good health. Contrariwise, you might resent good health because it fights disease. All these things are just features of life in evolution, and evolution establishes an equilibrium in an ecology. Money can represent evil, and money can represent virtue. The difference arises in how humans apply money in their daily lives. We can use it for good or evil.
Later John.

John, I wish I could figure out how to make the larger proportion of powerful money work for good!

John, you make a good point - but do you really think I implied resentment? I thought I was making a simple declarative statement - and my elaboration was much to the same point as yours, that it's a fact of life.

Of course, I could be interpreting into your use of my statement an implication that you didn't intend... maybe you didn't mean to imply that you were disputing the validity of what I said....

Cheryl:

No, no, Cheryl. I didn't think you were implying resentment. It's just that the subject of money and power is one of my buttons, and I like to spout off about how money is not the root of evil. The actual original quote is "For the love of money is the root of all evil," so it is the abuse of power that draws people toward the dark side.
Later, John.

This was not a particularly well written article. He talks about breaking the law, but never says what laws were being broken. I agree with Melissa that, in the case of Aaron Schwarz, he was accessing information without the proper license. It would be akin to pirating music illegally.

There is another problem with academic discourse that deals with the major scientific publications. Getting something published in a journal like Science or Nature, even if it's a groundbreaking discovery, is very difficult and takes a lot of time and clout. I suppose it's necessary in order to go through the peer review process, but with the immediacy of the internet, I would think there would be a better way.

Thanks both of you for your input! :)

Pete wrote: "This was not a particularly well written article. ..."

I quite agree.

"... I suppose it's necessary in order to go through the peer review process, but with the immediacy of the internet, I would think there would be a better way. "

You've hit the nail on the head, Pete. Of course, anybody can self-publish whatever they want on the Internet. And a lot of people do that. But the peer review process acts as a filter, by weeding out most of the half-baked ideas. It also weeds out a few good ideas, too, unfortunately.

I can't imagine publications without peer-review. If the peer-review isn't there, there is no mechanism currently in place to help (note I said help) ensure that the research even meets current scientific standards.

Personally, I spend an enormous amount of time doing research using the net. Both by acquiring papers through storehouses, and by following up on citations. I rarely believe anything posted anywhere unless there are citations and I can read them as well.

In addition, I wholeheartely support open access to publications, and I wish there were better sources of "gray literature".