Having read this ongoing exchange with some interest, I find may experience 180 degrees contrary to that expressed by Peter Banks. I've been monitoring a whole series of listserves operated by US TOO (for prostate cancer) and by Dan Cooley (www.prostate-help.org) in which monitoring and critiquing original and clinical research are pervasive themes (including guidance in effective use of PubMed). The sad part, with this continuing attention, is that much of the discussion is limited to abstracts (since the actual research articles are unavailable to the groups). Of course, as a result of contributing to the ALPSP study of OA journals, I was able to point that at least one of the important titles, the International Brazilian Journal of Urology),was openly accessible. Contrary to Peter's assertion about patient needs and wants, at least for the sizeable prostate cancer community (and friends and families), access to current, authoritative information would rank near the top of psychological needs if not clinical. I am repeatedly astounded at the insatiable demand for new research findings and at the lamentable ignorance of most newbies ot the diagnosis of how to go about finding authoritative information. OA is the answer at least for the first of these. K. Mulliner Rutland, Ohio 45775 mulliner@ohio.edu