From: David Goodman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:59:24 -0400

To the extent that the general public cannot see the research that the
elite institutions are doing, and to the extent other parts of society
have difficulty in obtaining and using the research, the elite
institutions  will lose their base of support. This is already
happening in the US, and probably will soon be elsewhere.  Failure of
any academic or research institution takes to ensure that its work is
widely noticed is the road to long term disaster.

To anticipate an objection, that was "see" and "noticed" -- not
necessarily "understood."     But it's the first step towards
understanding. The basic e argument for Open Access is to increase the
public's knowledge, respect, and understanding for science and
scholarship, and its realization of the power of the scientific
method. To the extent this is not realized, it is not only the elite
institutions but the rest of the world also that will that face
disaster.  Open Access is about more than publishing.

David Goodman

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:00 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700
>
> It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as
> though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue
> projections.  Does everyone really think the world does not change
> from time to time?  It is simply not in a research university's
> interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor.  Most
> research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the
> interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the
> corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the
> research.  There is a total absence of strategic thinking here.
>
> So what's the scenario?  Major research university X gives away its
> intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding.
> Ridiculous.
>
> Joe Esposito