From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:20:39 -0400

Thank you, Joe, for this friendly form of personal confession. I appreciate...

It had always been clear to me that we disagreed on principles, and
particularly on the following one:

"My view--my practical view--is that the economic performance of
mission-based organizations must be addressed without recourse to
government intervention.  We are on our own, for better or worse."

My response is that one should carefully consider the activities under
review. Joe's argument, if it were applied to roads and bridges - in
short, to infrastructures - would sound strange indeed. Governments
have roles to play at the infrastructural level (at the very least).
Present remarks by officials of various countries (Obama included)
about the infrastructural and strategic role of research (and this
includes the US) reflect the recognition of the fact that, indeed,
scientific research plays an infrastructural role in the economy.

Publishing, as I have argued many times, is an integral part of the
research process. As a result, it is the infrastructure of an
infrastructural activity. How much more infrastructural can you get?
Moreover, it is only a small fraction of the costs of research. The US
Government, in ghe last decade had paid out between 130 and 150 plus
bllion dollars per year on research. This is not small potatoes.

I would also like to point out that the label "mission-based
organizations" is not a very useful category. The US army is very much
a mission-based organization...

Finally, I would not express so much frustrations at some publishers
if they responded to researchers' needs with good services and modest
profit rates, and not to their stockholders, with enormous profit
rates. Incidentally, these profit rates are being paid by our
taxpayers' money. In short, if governments almost everywhere,
including in the public universities of the US, did not buy these
publications, who would? And with what money?


Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



-----Original Message-----

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 20:27:27 -0400

Over the years on this list I have wondered if I disagreed with
Jean-Claude on principle or in practice.  I have gone back and forth
on this, but now conclude that our differences are of principle.  With
many others, matters swing the other way.  For example, I disagree
almost across the board on principle with such pundits as Peter
Brantley and Barbara Fister, but their practical solutions are
appealing.  And I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophical
positions of the AAP, but I disagree with their actions.  Up to now I
have always viewed Jean-Claude's views as something of a rehearsal for
a round of negotiations.  But now it's apparent to me that he views
the world in a fundamentally different way.  I think, then, we can
find accord in practice and leave our philosophical disputes at the
bar.

Specifically, Jean-Claude cites the fact that much, even most research
is funded by governments and thus the publications resulting from that
research should be available to all--hence open access.  He posits
further that we are on an inexorable march in that direction, citing
the examples of several nations.  His view is that taxpayers have paid
and will pay for this, so let's get the migration to OA over.

I sit not in glorious Canada nor in enlightened Europe, but in the
land of the yahoos, where even research into political science is
viewed disdainfully by our elected officials.  We needn't get into the
views of the political class on evolution or climate change, nor
should we ponder the declaration of an official that toy guns should
be banned because they could be confused with (legitimate) real ones.
I search for public support for the funding of research and the
publications that derive from it and find nothing.  There are
proposals to end Medicaid for the poor, to shut down public
television, to reduce or eliminate student loans, to ban pediatricians
from discussing the danger of firearms with the parents of their
patients, but support for the research community?  Better to think of
the cosmopolitan segment of the population as a cult, marooned on an
island who-knows-where and susceptible to the tsunami of
narrow-mindedness and bitterness.

Where I differ with Jean-Claude is that I cannot bring myself to hope
where he is passionate.  My view--my practical view--is that the
economic performance of mission-based organizations must be addressed
without recourse to government intervention.  We are on our own, for
better or worse.  We can curse the commercial organizations and even
the charitable societies that behave like commercial entities, but in
the end we will have to get on with this business under our own
management and with our own skills and capital.

I wish it were otherwise, but I read the news today, oh boy.

Joe Esposito