From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:26:01 -0400

I am flattered that Dr. Watkinson feels I had special influence on Ian
Gibson and his Select Committee. I wish I had had. But alas the truth
is as I have already written: I was not one of the 23 witnesses invited
to give oral evidence (several publishers were).  Ian's parliamentary
assistant Sarah Revell pencilled me in for a personal appointment on
Wednesday October 13 2004 if Ian's jury duty ended in time (it did) but
my recall of that breathless brief audience was that it was too
compressed for me to be able to stutter out much that made sense,
and I left it pretty pessimistic. And my over-zealous attempts to
compensate for it via email were very politely but firmly discouraged
by  the committee's very able clerk, Emily Commander. So my input
amounted  to being one of the 127 who submitted written evidence,
plus that tachylalic audience on the 13th. The rest of the influence
on the committee was from written reasons, not personal charisma.

As to publishers, and learned-society publishers: they are pretty
much of a muchness in their fealty to their bottom lines. The only
learned societies that could testify with a disinterested voice (let
alone one that represented the interests of learned research
rather than earned revenues) were the learned societies that
that were not also publishers.

Stevan Harnad

On 2012-07-22, at 10:42 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:44:48 +0100
>
> Of course publishers are going to lobby against the green route to
> open access: the arguments from publishers are well known and in no
> way hidden and whether or not the lobbying is aggressive is a matter
> of one's own perceptions surely.
>
> Going back to 2003/2004 I was asked to be the expert adviser to the
> committee that we both referred to and had a pleasant conversation
> with Ian Gibson, the member of parliament who was the committee chair.
> It seemed to me in our conversation that Dr. Gibson had already been
> lobbied by Professor Harnad or his disciplines and that his mind was
> already made up. I cannot remember now whether or not Dr. Gibson said
> that he had met Professor Harnad but it was definitely the impression
> I had.
>
> Anyway I refused the opportunity of influence because I did not think
> I could be dispassionate. I did propose working with someone closer to
> Professor Harnad's views (whom I named) and recommended other people
> who were neutral and could do the job. In the end Dr. Gibson plumped
> for David Worlock, who was an excellent choice.
>
> I just do not believe on the basis of what others have told me - I
> have no direct knowledge and nor clearly has Professor Harnad - that
> the decisions of the Finch committee were pre-determined. Members of
> the committee I have spoken to do not confirm Professor Harnad's
> statements.
>
> I find this statement fascinating:
>
> "There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
> publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
> open access to publicly funded research".
>
> I am impressed by the suggestion that Professor Harnad actually thinks
> that learned societies, organisations that represent the academic
> communities, should not be involved in decisions which will have such
> an impact on the said academic communities!
>
> Anthony Watkinson