<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>Taxpayer access is a strong argument for open access but subject to this particular counter-argument.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To counter the counter-arguments it is important to speak to the indirect as well as the direct benefits of open access to taxpayer research. Direct benefits are when the taxpayer can read the results of the research themselves (subject to nationalist
arguments).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Indirect benefits include advancing the research. Examples:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a foreign researcher can contribute towards the cure or treatment for cancer we're supporting through our tax dollars, this gets us to our goal faster (speeds the research) and is financially beneficial (others contribute to pay for what we want).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If another country is able to stop a communicable disease within their borders because we have shared our knowledge with them, they benefit, but so do we - this lowers the odds that we will have to deal with the disease. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If anyone, anywhere, can figure how ways to achieve cheap, clean energy sources, and shares their knowledge with all, everyone benefits.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best,</div>
<br>
<div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>-- <br>
Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies<br>
University of Ottawa</div>
<div>613-562-5800 ext. 7634<br>
<a href="http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html">http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 2014-01-27, at 9:47 AM, Mike Taylor <<a href="mailto:mike@indexdata.com">mike@indexdata.com</a>></div>
<div> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">Actually, Kent Anderson feels very strongly that he should be allowed<br>
to keep printing money by paywalling the work of others. Everything<br>
else he says follows from that.<br>
<br>
-- Mike.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 27 January 2014 14:34, Katie Foxall <<a href="mailto:katie@ecancer.org">katie@ecancer.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I've been following this with interest and just wanted to draw your<br>
attention to a debate I had with Kent Anderson at the Scholarly Kitchen (see<br>
towards the end of the comments) - he feels very strongly that American<br>
taxpayers should not be paying for other countries to have access to<br>
research (specifically through PMC in this case). I have come up against<br>
this kind of thinking from traditional publishers again and again.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: open-access [mailto:open-<a href="mailto:access-bounces@lists.okfn.org">access-bounces@lists.okfn.org</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
Bjoern Brembs<br>
Sent: 27 January 2014 12:41<br>
To: Heather Morrison<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a>; <a href="mailto:open-science@lists.okfn.org">
open-science@lists.okfn.org</a>; Emanuil Tolev<br>
Subject: Re: [Open-access] [open-science] Open Science Anthology published<br>
<br>
On Sunday, January 26, 2014, 10:30:41 PM, you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">1. If the work of scholars is not their work, but<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">rather the taxpayers' work, then scholars have no rights to grant<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">copyright to publishers, period, no rights to obtain patents or to<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">work with commercial companies or universities to help them to achieve<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">patents. I think a good argument could be made that this is how things<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">should work, but in reality this is not how the system works now.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">FYI, this would be an argument AGAINST CC-BY, as CC licenses are a<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">partial waiver of copyright, and from this perspective scholars have<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">no copyright to grant. If you would like to advocate for this position<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I very much encourage you to do so!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's actually quite close to my perspective, as I do take issue with<br>
university-applied patents and 'spin-off' companies by (public) university<br>
scholars, etc.<br>
<br>
Thus, I try to make all my research CC0 or CC BY or public domain and argue<br>
that this is what all people in similar positions should do.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">2. If the work of scholars is 100% paid for by<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">taxpayers where you work and live, what an excellent model<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">- please write about how this works!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's how it is here. The state pays my university which pays my salary,<br>
that of my technician and that of my postdoc, plus a yearly budget which (in<br>
my rather special case) covers almost my entire research budget, if the two<br>
people I mentioned remained by sole co-workers.<br>
<br>
The model (which is slowly becoming outdated as research becomes more<br>
expensive) is that state universities cover all baseline aspects of research<br>
and teaching, while the federal government only pays for the extra-ordinary<br>
research projects for which one needs grants.<br>
<br>
In my case, there is only public money involved, from beginning to end.<br>
Student tuitions existed here only a for a few years, went 100% into<br>
teaching and were abolished last year. Private donations happen essentially<br>
only at institutions with corporate interests such as technical universities<br>
or in fields such as economics or some such.<br>
<br>
>From an international perspective, perhaps this makes my case special, I<br>
don't know, but at least for most of Europe and the US (public universities)<br>
in my field of research, I get the impression it's at least very similar.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">For example, would you propose that taxpayers should claim copyright?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
To combat abuse by whom? Tax-evaders? Maybe :-) Aliens? I don't know if<br>
copyright should be our top priority in this case :-)<br>
<br>
Seriously, though, I've seen the issue mentioned of tax-payers from one<br>
country protecting their investment against tax-payers from other countries.<br>
This is something that the current mantra of "the tax payer paid for it, so<br>
the tax payer should be able to access and re-use it" would, IMHO, cover.<br>
One country could, in principle, make all their research OA only for that<br>
country (more tricky in practice, obviously).<br>
<br>
Clearly, this sort of "knowledge protectionism" is a perspective we should<br>
try and prevent.<br>
<br>
However, I don't really have a good idea on how to defend "let's give away<br>
the research we paid for to those who didn't pay" against politicians who<br>
already begrudge poor people their social security.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">What this means is that a very large percentage of research is<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">conducted without taxpayer funding.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As with all research that is not tax payer funded, the open access rationale<br>
doesn't apply - it applies the rationale of either the scholar, if they are<br>
self-funded, or of the entity paying the scholar.<br>
<br>
I don't think anybody ever proposed making something public by default which<br>
wasn't public to begin with?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">5. Research often involves other parties besides<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">funders and researchers. An argument can be made that research on<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">First Nations groups properly belongs to them (in Canada, some of our<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">First Nations groups do make such claims). Businesses, medical<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">subjects, organizations that help to facilitate the research - many<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">people participate in research projects. This illustrates an issue<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">with the "funder copyright" scenario - if rich people are able to fund<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">research conducted on poor people does this mean that rich people<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">should own the results? I would argue no, that others who have<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">contributed to works have rights as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think issues such as these are relevant for this discussion, as<br>
human rights always trump *any* form of license or copyright (at least for<br>
me as a non-lawyer), i.e., whatever license were ever established as a<br>
"default", there would always be larger reasons (e.g., privacy, your<br>
examples, or biological safety, etc.) which necessitate exceptions.<br>
<br>
For instance, I'm not sure I would favor a CC BY license for a paper which<br>
happened to describe the construction of an H-bomb with household<br>
ingredients, but I wouldn't find this particular example an obstacle to OA<br>
in general.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Bjoern<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
Björn Brembs<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<a href="http://brembs.net">http://brembs.net</a><br>
<br>
Neurogenetics<br>
<br>
Universität Regensburg<br>
<br>
Germany<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
open-access mailing list<br>
<br>
open-access@lists.okfn.org<br>
<br>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access<br>
<br>
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
open-access mailing list<br>
open-access@lists.okfn.org<br>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access<br>
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>