Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Why Johnny Can't Speak: a Cost of Paywalled Research 189

theodp writes "That there's no easy way for her to get timely, affordable access to taxpayer-funded research that could help her patients leaves speech-language pathologist Cortney Grove, well, speechless. 'Cortney's frustration,' writes the EFF's Adi Kamdar, 'is not uncommon. Much of the research that guides health-related progress is funded by taxpayer dollars through government grants, and yet those who need this information most-practitioners and their patients-cannot afford to access it.' She says, 'In my field we are charged with using scientific evidence to make clinical decisions. Unfortunately, the most pertinent evidence is locked up in the world of academic publishing and I cannot access it without paying upwards of $40 an article. My current research project is not centered around one article, but rather a body of work on a given topic. Accessing all the articles I would like to read will cost me nearly a thousand dollars. So, the sad state of affairs is that I may have to wait 7-10 years for someone to read the information, integrate it with their clinical opinions (biases, agendas, and financial motivations) and publish it in a format I can buy on Amazon. By then, how will my clinical knowledge and skills have changed? How will my clients be served in the meantime? What would I do with the first-hand information that I will not be able to do with the processed, commercialized product that emerges from it in a decade?'"

Comment Re:Time to shut down the WTO (Score 1) 327

You are GROSSLY oversimplifying the actual event. At the time of the US revolution in 1776, about 1/3 of the population wanted independence (more than joinder with Britain), 1/3 were supportive of Britain, and 1/3 just wanted eveyone to shut up and leave them alone. And we would have lost quickly and thoroughly if we hadn't had significant aid from France (much of which was in the European theater, but not all, by any means).

The GP who said it was about corporate profits was closer to being correct than are the high school history books. He should have said company profits, as corporations weren't anywhere near as dominant then, and much of the support came from relatively smaller companies. Especially smugglers. (Why, I'm not sure. Maybe they hadn't realized that you make more money outside the law, or maybe they wanted to reduce their danger. The reason probably actually varied.)

P.S.: It's worth remembering that the most successful pirates of the era, and probably any era, depend for their success on close contacts with the "legitimate" financial companies.

Comment Re:Time to shut down the WTO (Score 1) 327

If they'd meant tourist advertising, they could have said tourist advertising. If they want to say things that can be interpreted in any way one wants, then they need to accept that others may have different interpretations.

How would they feel if some other country decided that selling religious books was against social policy? And wrote a law that also forbid selling DVDs, CDs, and MP3s, etc. that might contain religious themes? (Not against providing them, O no, just against selling them.) Doing it for entertainment is allowed, but not as a profitable activity. I could come up with an interpretation of that treaty that would easily justify such a law.

Comment Re:Constitution free zone (Score 1) 622

I think that maps out of date. Remember you need to include the area around every "international airport". I would guess that this means closer to 2/3 of US citizens live in such areas. And that may well be an underestimate already. But they can expand it ad lib by granting an airport the right to have, say, an Canadian carrier land there. (It doesn't need to actually land there, just have the right to.)

Comment Re:All Hail Glorious Leader Obummer! (Score 2) 622

You don't understand the problem at all. Liberal and Conservative are camoflage suits worn by politicians.

Yes, Obama is breaking the law (mainly as an accessory before the fact). But he's able to do this because of the precedents set by Bush. That's what the cycle has been for (at least) decades. The Republicans extend the power of the government, but don't dare use that power because of the opposition (at least apparently). While the Republicans are in power the Democrats vilify their mad power grabs. Then the Democrats take power, and rather then repealing the extension of power, they use the powers that have been granted to them by their predecessors.

In this case, however, it sounds like the actual criminal actions were performed by the Maryland police. (With various TSA personnel accessories before the fact.) I expect that Obama is only an accessory after the fact...and even that hasn't yet been proven. He may decline to support this action.

Comment Re:Still Bad Patents (Score 1) 162

You can call it "sweat of the brow" if you want to, but that's not a reasonable description of, say, drug testing. First you need to invent a possible new drug. Then you need to test it on a large number of people. etc. This involves very significant up-front costs. It isn't that it's more inventive, it's that it's a lot more expensive to get it to the working stage.

OTOH, by this criterion no drug should actually be granted a patent until after it has FDA approval. I agree that if you are allowed to patent a drug before getting FDA approval, then you don't meet the target. But note that I still would reject many drug patents on "obviousness" ground. E.g., if selling a pill with a drug mixed with asprin to achieve the effects of taking the two pills separately, then you don't meet the "obviousness" criteria, even though you still need to fulfill all the drug testing requirements.

Slashdot Top Deals

We must believe that it is the darkest before the dawn of a beautiful new world. We will see it when we believe it. -- Saul Alinsky