[open-science] JennyMolloy and PeterMR representing OKF at Open Science Summit
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Oct 28 00:59:29 UTC 2011
2011/10/28 Bill Hooker <cwhooker at fastmail.fm>
> For the record, I agree with Pawel. It's one thing to be provocative,
> quite another to make your fellow-travelers' lives more difficult.
> Appeals to the heart via wrenching images of poverty are not suitable
> for conversations about scholarly publishing: they simply make it easier
> for opponents to muddy the waters.
If there is a general feeling that I have overstepped limits I will take
that on board. For the record (and I own any error in this - I am not making
excuses) the initial 5-6 slides were not mine and were presented at Science
Online in London and not by me. But having used them I take responsibility.
I suspect that the context and perhpas my own delivery may have changed the
> Peter, you have done more than most in the service of Open Foo, and from
> time to time the same enthusiasm that powers your achievements has
> carried you over the line and put you in a position where you've had to
> retract, adjust or apologize for various statements. I've never
> considered that a bad thing and I've always admired your willingness to
> own up to error. I think this is one of those times. You've simply
> made statements that you can't support, and coming from someone of your
> stature that really does not help the cause.
So - there are at least two different things - the use of the images and my
statements and possibly the combination.
As you say I listen to people and I am prepared to change my behaviour. This
was an event of public record - I will look at it again with your two
> On Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:09 AM, "Peter Murray-Rust"
> <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 2011/10/27 Paweł Szczęsny <ps at pawelszczesny.org>
> > > Dear Peter,
> > >
> > > I'm even more outraged after seeing the slides, than I was after
> > > reading your blog posts. Not only you show no data for assertion
> > > "closed access means people die" (anecdotal evidence is not an
> > > evidence - instead of formulating a hypothesis, you claim "I don’t
> > > think anyone can deny the truth of that conclusion."), but you imply
> > > absolutely false connection between mortality rates in very poor
> > > countries and lack of access to primary research literature.
> > >
> > I did not say it was the major cause of mortality, but it is a
> > contributor,
> > including in the rich west. After talking with people who run patient
> > groups
> > there is anecdotal evidence that many patients cannot get access to the
> > literature they want and that diagnoses are in error because of that.
> > I shall take steps to create bodies of anecdotal evidence to support my
> > assertion.
> > >
> > > This is very wrong. Majority of maternal mortality rate in Bangladesh
> > > (see your last slide) is attributed to child marriage, lack of female
> > > education and lack of skilled birth attendants. Access to scholarly
> > > literature is absolutely irrelevant in such case. You'd need to
> > > improve the standard of living and the quality of education first.
> > >
> > this is an independent effect.
> > > Please stop flashing images of poor people in your open foo talks.
> > > You're harming the credibility of open science community.
> > >
> > >
> > That's an opinion.
> > P.
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-science mailing list
> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science