Q 1. on OA

In fairness one should add at least one item to Peter's
list of 
investments on the part of professional societies: 
political 
lobbying.  Few do this, but it is not something that can 
comfortably be covered by the phrase "other activities
that 
benefit science and medicine."

Joe Esposito

On 6/18/06, Peter Banks <pbanksbankspub.com> wrote:
>
> Only every society publisher. Obviously, societies are
non profit
> and invest any net income in research, professional
education,
> patient education, standards development, student
training and
> development, and other activities that benefit science
and
> medicine--far more than using the net income for OA
ever would.
>
> Contrary to the perception that society publishing
policies are
> dictated by staff publishers, they are in fact under
the control
> of member researchers and physicians. OA advocates who
are able
> to play well with others, as opposed to issuing press
releases
> and declarations, might joint the leadership of
societies and
> advance the OA cause. Of course, that would require
flexibility
> and compromise, something notably lacking in the
followers of the
> messianic brand of OA.
>
> Peter Banks
>
> On 6/16/06 8:24 PM, "Richard Feinman"
<RFeinmandownstate.edu> wrote:
>
>> Is there anyone who is opposed to OA who does not
benefit financially
>> from the current system?
>>
>> Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry