RE: The Value of OA (resend)

["Mcsean, Tony \(ELS\)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>]

"Peanuts" is a loaded term.  The best estimate we have of OA 
costs' impact on medical research funding is that of Mark Wolpert 
of the Wellcome Trust who estimated that their programme would 
cost between one and two percent of grant funding.  This estmate 
still leaves a pretty big margin for error, but if 1% of medical 
research funding is "peanuts" then my definition of "wealth" 
needs recasting.  As Rick Anderson said, there is serious money 
involved and we need to have an evidence base that it produces 
the best value.

This debate should be conducted on the basis of research evidence 
and intelligent deduction.  Calling millions of pounds "peanuts" 
does no credit to the argument that it's aligned with, and brings 
the whole discussion down.

And a happy easter to all.

Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier
London NW1 7BY

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 05 April 2007 23:41
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: The Value of OA

Peter

The amount of time, money, and energy that has gone into the open 
access debate is peanuts compared to the amount of time, money, 
and energy that has gone into actual cancer research.  The idea 
that promoting open access is somehow retarding progress in 
cancer research is a non-starter.

(Incidentally, the amount of money spent on open access is 
probably no larger than the amount of money spent by funders on 
journal page charges. However, you rarely see anybody question 
how much further we would be if all the money that has gone into 
page charges had instead been applied to actual cancer research!)

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org