Re: Q 1. on OA

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Peter:

I am not going to focus on the word "typically," which covers a 
multitude of sins, but I think you are on shakey ground here. 
Dollars are fungible; what comes in from publishing can be spent 
on lobbying for (or against) Medicare benefits, environmental 
regulations, and so forth.  Professional societies have their 
interests, as they should, and they are not neccessarily of the 
"for the greater good" variety. I am personally not troubled by 
this at all, nor do I think getting all the facts out, warts and 
all, undermines your very strong argument.  Professional 
societies have a right to charge for their publications and use 
that money in any lawful way they see fit.  That does not mean 
that everyone would continue to purchase the publications if the 
various ways the revenue got redistributed and spent were 
disclosed.  If the academy can impose embargoes on Israel and the 
Sudan, why not a professional society or two?  Indeed, I am truly 
amazed that the OA advocates have not pursued this route already.

Joe Esposito

On 6/19/06, Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com> wrote:
>
> 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