Comment on access to publicly funded research

| 21 Comments

I got this announcement from AAAS today:

Make your voice heard!

We have been asked to relay to the broad scientific community the following opportunity to advise US government policymaking deliberations.

You can read the latest updates at: www.whitehouse.gov/open

The Obama Administration is seeking public input on policies concerning access to publicly-funded research results, such as those that appear in academic and scholarly journal articles. Currently, the National Institutes of Health require that research funded by its grants be made available to the public online at no charge within 12 months of publication. The Administration is seeking views as to whether this policy should be extended to other science agencies and, if so, how it should be implemented.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and the White House Open Government Initiative are launching a “Public Access Policy Forum” to invite public participation in thinking through what the Federal government’s policy should be with regard to public access to published federally-funded research results.

To that end, OSTP will conduct an interactive, online discussion beginning Thursday, December 10. The discussion will focus on three major areas of interest:

* Implementation (Dec. 10 to 20): Which Federal agencies are good candidates to adopt Public Access policies? What variables (field of science, proportion of research funded by public or private entities, etc.) should affect how public access is implemented at various agencies, including the maximum length of time between publication and public release? Add your comments

You will want to read the Terms of Participation and will need to register a new account and log in using the link at the bottom of the page to comment. Tips on how to comment and moderate posts are listed in the right-hand column. * Features and Technology (Dec. 21 to Dec 31): In what format should the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search and retrieve information, and to make it easy for others to link to it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these anticipated to change?

* Management (Jan. 1 to Jan. 7): What are the best mechanisms to ensure compliance? What would be the best metrics of success? What are the best examples of usability in the private sector (both domestic and international)? Should those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?

Each of these topics will form the basis of a blog posting that will appear at www.whitehouse.gov/open and will be open for comment on the OSTP blog at blog.ostp.gov.

Sincerely, Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS and Executive Publisher, Science

21 Comments

I for one was very disappointed with this book, although the writing style was far far better than Meyer’s previous efforts, I was shocked that in over 600 pages there wasn’t a single mention of vampires at all.

Chris Hall said:

I for one was very disappointed with this book, although the writing style was far far better than Meyer’s previous efforts, I was shocked that in over 600 pages there wasn’t a single mention of vampires at all.

What does this have to do with the OP?

If any of this demand for “public access” is coming from science denialists, they are going to end up hoisted very high on their own petard.

Legitimate scientific research can adapt to and ultimately is all about transparency and replication of results.

RBH said:

Chris Hall said:

I for one was very disappointed with this book, although the writing style was far far better than Meyer’s previous efforts, I was shocked that in over 600 pages there wasn’t a single mention of vampires at all.

What does this have to do with the OP?

I just got the joke … I think it was supposed to be posted in one of the “Signature in the Cell” threads.

Here’s a hint …

I imagine there’s a sometimes blurry line to tread between denying troglodytes like Schlafly access to “the original data,” i.e. E. coli cultures, and yet being consistently open enough that reasonable requests for data made possible by public funding is accessible. But is there currently a problem that needs addressing?

This makes a good point for creationist inclusion in all public institutions. The whole country belongs to everyone. Everyone in your country pays for all the infrastructure and the educational resources. Its not the ownership of the few in positions in these things but the moral, legal, and practical ownership of all adult citizens. Therefore the time has come for the great issue of creationism and the general issue of academic freedom to be more thoroughly publicaly discussed with real intents to settle matters. I’m confident the majority of the public welcomes creationism into all aspects of education etc even if they don’t agree with its conclusions. It would be a odd thing indeed if President Obama term led to inclusion and not exclusion of people’s and ideas.

Robert Byers -

Sometimes your comments do offer the chance to make a rather fundamental point.

The whole country belongs to everyone. Everyone in your country pays for all the infrastructure and the educational resources. Its not the ownership of the few in positions in these things but the moral, legal, and practical ownership of all adult citizens.

That’s exactly right. And that’s why I can’t use tax dollars to force my religious beliefs on you, and you can’t use tax dollars to force your religion on me.

For whatever reason, I don’t want to do that to you, whereas you do seem to want to do that to me. However, it isn’t going to happen. I’m a US/Canadian dual citizen, currently living in the US, but in either country the constitution prevents the government from favoring one guy’s religious beliefs and forcing them on unwilling others.

Now, unfortunately for you, your religion chooses to contradict science, and science must be taught in public school. Well, that’s tough. I could claim that my religion contradicts algebra or geography, but those subjects are still going to be taught.

Fortunately, we do both have the option of schooling our own children at our own expense, either in private schools or by home schooling. In such a private, non-tax funded setting, you can fill your childrens’ heads with all the science denial you want, for better or for worse.

Therefore the time has come for the great issue of creationism and the general issue of academic freedom to be more thoroughly publicaly discussed with real intents to settle matters. I’m confident the majority of the public welcomes creationism into all aspects of education

Well, you’ve been proven wrong, because when school board officials have attempted to insert creationism into public schools, which has only happened in rural, conservative, fundamentalism-friendly jurisdictions, I might note, they have eventually been voted out of office as well as defeated in court.

However, even if that weren’t the case, that’s EXACTLY what the constitution is for.

Let’s imagine, for example, that the majority of people wanted to use public schools to teach that Mormonism is the one true faith, and that Robert Byers’ religion is a heresy. They can’t! For just the same reason that they can’t vote to have you arbitrarily thrown in prison. You have rights. But the problem is, so does everyone else. I know that part annoys you. But that’s just the way it works. It’s weird, but - think about this carefully - either everyone has rights, or no-one has secure rights.

harold said:

Robert Byers -

Sometimes your comments do offer the chance to make a rather fundamental point.

The whole country belongs to everyone. Everyone in your country pays for all the infrastructure and the educational resources. Its not the ownership of the few in positions in these things but the moral, legal, and practical ownership of all adult citizens.

That’s exactly right. And that’s why I can’t use tax dollars to force my religious beliefs on you, and you can’t use tax dollars to force your religion on me.

For whatever reason, I don’t want to do that to you, whereas you do seem to want to do that to me. However, it isn’t going to happen. I’m a US/Canadian dual citizen, currently living in the US, but in either country the constitution prevents the government from favoring one guy’s religious beliefs and forcing them on unwilling others.

Now, unfortunately for you, your religion chooses to contradict science, and science must be taught in public school. Well, that’s tough. I could claim that my religion contradicts algebra or geography, but those subjects are still going to be taught.

Fortunately, we do both have the option of schooling our own children at our own expense, either in private schools or by home schooling. In such a private, non-tax funded setting, you can fill your childrens’ heads with all the science denial you want, for better or for worse.

Therefore the time has come for the great issue of creationism and the general issue of academic freedom to be more thoroughly publicaly discussed with real intents to settle matters. I’m confident the majority of the public welcomes creationism into all aspects of education

Well, you’ve been proven wrong, because when school board officials have attempted to insert creationism into public schools, which has only happened in rural, conservative, fundamentalism-friendly jurisdictions, I might note, they have eventually been voted out of office as well as defeated in court.

However, even if that weren’t the case, that’s EXACTLY what the constitution is for.

Let’s imagine, for example, that the majority of people wanted to use public schools to teach that Mormonism is the one true faith, and that Robert Byers’ religion is a heresy. They can’t! For just the same reason that they can’t vote to have you arbitrarily thrown in prison. You have rights. But the problem is, so does everyone else. I know that part annoys you. But that’s just the way it works. It’s weird, but - think about this carefully - either everyone has rights, or no-one has secure rights.

I am Canadian. Well you just said in effect NO to public involvement and yes, yes, yes to censorship. Except your ideas.

AMEN to tax dollars not being used to shove religion or shove against religion. In teaching evolution and forbiding rebuttal the state is forcing on the kids that God/Genesis is a false teaching on origins. so they are breaking the separation concept and indeed the law used to keep out creationism. There should be freedom.

AMEN if you are saying what the public wants is important. Polls show about 70% agree with both sides being taught in scince class on origin issues. Creationists welcome public voting and decisionmaking in these things. I don’t think your side does despite obscure cases of little towns. They don’t trust America on this matter. They are right.

Its about freedom , freedom of speech, freedom of intelligence to contend with wrong ideas. Its about the great right of Christianity to give its opinions on matters where opinions are given that deny Christianity. We were here first and created the whole civilization and all the good stuff in it.

Mr Byers- The constitution exists to limit the power of government (and by extention the majority). The Bill or Rights is a ‘line in the sand’ that says - no matter what the majority wants (via it’s representatives in government)it cannot trod on the individual rights outlined in the constitution. Therefore even if 99% wanted religion in schools and that act would violate the constitutionally protected rights of the 1% - that action would be illegal. The same Constitution protects your “right of Christianity to give its opinions” - but those opnions have a PLACE, (in public forums, in churches(which are tax exempted) wtc.)and that place is NOT where MY TAX DOLLARS PAY for education!

Robert, you brainless weasel:

There is no scientific rebuttal to evolution.

You may have religious objections, but when it comes to science, science classes in public funded schools, public science education, no-one gives a shit, about your religion or anyone else’s. Suck it up, princess.

Now go away.

steering the thread back on topic-

I don’t see anything nefarious in the proposed changes in disclosure - seems to be inline with Obama’s trend towards more transparency in government spending

now how this impacts the revenue stream of the publications?

are there implications as to who “owns” the results of that research (i.e. patents, etc.)? BTSOM

JASONMITCHELL said: now how this impacts the revenue stream of the publications?

are there implications as to who “owns” the results of that research (i.e. patents, etc.)? BTSOM

While I could be wrong about this, my impression from reading the OSTP blog is that OSTP is talking about publishing more Departmental data or metrics so that government agency performance is more open and transparent.

So, as a pulled-out-of-my-ass example for illustrative purposes only and not to be taken seriously, under this initiative you might see an agency like EPA publishing the overhead costs in their R&D programs, so that the public can see what % of funding marked as ‘research’ actually goes to research. You would not see, and OSTP is not talking about, EPA openly publishing data from EPA-funded research.

Which is a very long-winded way of saying: IMO there will be no impact on publication revenue or patents at all.

“Its about the great right of Christianity”. How about the right to teach the Hopi origin myth or the Hindu or the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime myth? It’s NOT all about you.

JASONMITCHELL said:

Mr Byers- The constitution exists to limit the power of government (and by extention the majority). The Bill or Rights is a ‘line in the sand’ that says - no matter what the majority wants (via it’s representatives in government)it cannot trod on the individual rights outlined in the constitution. Therefore even if 99% wanted religion in schools and that act would violate the constitutionally protected rights of the 1% - that action would be illegal. The same Constitution protects your “right of Christianity to give its opinions” - but those opnions have a PLACE, (in public forums, in churches(which are tax exempted) wtc.)and that place is NOT where MY TAX DOLLARS PAY for education!

The constitution was written by very Protestent Christian people. They never would of banned or censored the teachings on origins based on God or Genesis. In fact they probably would of banned criticisms of this and especially evolution.

So its impossible to read into the constitution the present censorship. So its up to evolution fans to prove why it was sudden;y found in the ‘60’s that creationism is illegal.

Therefore its a simple conclusion that if this new “law” bans teaching the bible on origins just because the state and religion are not to interfere in each other then likewise the state cannot teach the bible is false. By teaching origins without God/Genesis the state is giving a opinion. Teaching evolution is giving an opinion on the bible. Then banning the bible firther makes clear the state is saying the bible is false on origins. So the state is breaking the new law. If you can’t in a serious subject of origins teach the bible is true then you can’t teach its not true by omitting it and teaching the opposite. This is because the state is clearly saying it is teaching what is true about origins. The ban on God/Genesis is a state opinion on religious truth to the kids. Where is my reasoning wrong???

The constitution was written by very Protestent Christian people.…Where is my reasoning wrong???

Right here

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise - James Madison

and here

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world - John Adams

and here

It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it - Thomas Jefferson

and here

In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it - Benjamin Franklin

and here

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all - Thomas Paine

and here

I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not - Ethan Allen

and in your spelling of “Protestant”, and just about every single time you open your ignorant mouth, Bob. Just because you hold strong opinions doesn’t mean you’re not woefully ill-informed on science, religion, constitutional law, history, spelling, grammar, and basic logic. The fact that you can’t see where your reasoning is wrong is not evidence of the soundness of the reasoning, it’s just one more sign that you’re not that bright.

Give it up guys. Bobby will never refute one single argument, he will never acknowledge one single fact, he will never admit that he was completely wrong, regardless of any evidence presented. All he will do is continue to butcher the English language and repeat his mantra, “I’m right, I’,m right, I’m right” over and over again until his head explodes.

I have no idea why he is allowed to disrupt every thread with off-topic nonsense. Everyone already know exactly what his warped and twisted mind “thinks”. No one cares if he denies political reality any more than they care if he denies science. He is impotent to affect either, thus his impotent rage.

If he ever describes for us the mechanism by which humans can change skin color instantly, or the mechanism by which terrestrial animals can be transformed in whales instantly, then perhaps someone will take him seriously. Until then, why fuel the fire of his impotent rage with facts that he can sacrifice on the alter of his ignorance? This guy is bat shit insane and we don’t need the guano.

ben said:

The constitution was written by very Protestent Christian people.…Where is my reasoning wrong???

Right here

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise - James Madison

and here

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world - John Adams

and here

It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it - Thomas Jefferson

and here

In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it - Benjamin Franklin

and here

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all - Thomas Paine

and here

I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not - Ethan Allen

and in your spelling of “Protestant”, and just about every single time you open your ignorant mouth, Bob. Just because you hold strong opinions doesn’t mean you’re not woefully ill-informed on science, religion, constitutional law, history, spelling, grammar, and basic logic. The fact that you can’t see where your reasoning is wrong is not evidence of the soundness of the reasoning, it’s just one more sign that you’re not that bright.

I insist the constitution was written by a very Protestant Christian people. First it has authority from the people through their delegates who voted on the constitution. In fact the great man James madison said this and insisted individual men’s opinions did not define the constitution. Now these actual or, more likely, misunderstood anti- religious statements can be met , matched and trumped by a thousand to one other famous men in those days in the land. The whole nation and previous society was founded and greatly influenced by its protestant, even puritan/Evangelical, ideas and beliefs and there is no hope to say this was a liberal secular and uninfluenced world.

lets put it another way. If indeed the whole nation back then was very Christian then it must follow the constitution is likewise that and would never allow censorship of God/Genesis in public institutions. So it would mean the whole debate today on school/origins rest on whether the nation was or was not back then Christian . I don’t think the legal folks or any evolution folks want that.

You just can’t win. The people back then did not put into the constitution that when schools teach about origins God and Genesis will be banned as options. Yet still there will be teachings. Its an absurdity.

DS said:

Give it up guys. Bobby will never refute one single argument, he will never acknowledge one single fact, he will never admit that he was completely wrong, regardless of any evidence presented. All he will do is continue to butcher the English language and repeat his mantra, “I’m right, I’,m right, I’m right” over and over again until his head explodes.

I have no idea why he is allowed to disrupt every thread with off-topic nonsense. Everyone already know exactly what his warped and twisted mind “thinks”. No one cares if he denies political reality any more than they care if he denies science. He is impotent to affect either, thus his impotent rage.

If he ever describes for us the mechanism by which humans can change skin color instantly, or the mechanism by which terrestrial animals can be transformed in whales instantly, then perhaps someone will take him seriously. Until then, why fuel the fire of his impotent rage with facts that he can sacrifice on the alter of his ignorance? This guy is bat shit insane and we don’t need the guano.

Word.

Robert wrote:

“I insist the constitution was written by a very Protestant Christian people.”

And I insist that you are full of crap. Look Bobby, if you refuse to accept the evidence that is right in front of you, then everyone can see that your opinion is completely worthless. The founding fathers were mostly Deists and Freemasons. George Washington used slaves to grow marijuana, do you think we should be constrained by those beliefs as well? The founding fathers did not share your distorted views, deal with it already. Seriously dude, get some professional help. Your particular form of schizophrenia has been known to result in violent outbursts.

“lets put it another way. If indeed the whole nation back then was very Christian then it must follow the constitution is likewise that and would never allow censorship of God/Genesis in public institutions. So it would mean the whole debate today on school/origins rest on whether the nation was or was not back then Christian . I don’t think the legal folks or any evolution folks want that.”

lets put it this way, it doesn’t matter what the religious beliefs of people were back then. the first amendment now prohibits you from preaching your religious crap in public schools and calling it science. This is not censorship and you know it. Be honest for once in your life. the debate rests on the interpretation of the first amendment, not the religious beliefs of people dead and buried for over a hundred years ago. you can’t change that because you don’t get to vote in this country.

“You just can’t win. The people back then did not put into the constitution that when schools teach about origins God and Genesis will be banned as options. Yet still there will be teachings. Its an absurdity.”

Really? We just can’t win? We already have won, dipstick, at least for now. We have won in the scientific sense and we have won in the legal sense. The only way we can ever lose if is reality deniers like you are allowed to pervert the constitution and take away our right to freedom from religion. That may happen some day, but until then, piss off. I just hope that no one ever puts you in charge of science or English.

P.S.

Do you also still insist that you can change skin color instantly?

Robert Byers said:

lets [sic] put it another way. If indeed the whole nation back then was very Christian …

And ben has already established that it wasn’t.

Robert Byers said:

… then it must follow the constitution is likewise that …

No, it doesn’t follow. For example, even if the whole nation back then believed that the moon was made of green cheese, it doesn’t follow that the constitution likewise holds that the moon is made of green cheese.

Robert Byers said:

… and would never allow censorship of God/Genesis in public institutions.

But even if the Constitution were “very Christian [sic]”, it doesn’t follow that the Constitution would “never allow censorship [sic] of God/Genesis [sic]”.

The best way to support religion is to make sure that government doesn’t get involved in religion.

The founders correctly held that government entanglement in religion was bad for government and bad for religion.

Robert wants what’s bad for government and bad for religion, and he wants it so strongly that he’s willing to lie and to adduce nonsense arguments. Why do you hate religion so much, Robert?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on December 11, 2009 8:53 PM.

Creationists saturation-bombing Amazon? was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater: Dec 8, 10, & 11, 2009 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter