<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner in "Open & Shut"<br>
<a href="http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html</a><br>
<br>
Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to research,<br>
for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to research<br>
for researchers).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes both public<br>
access and researcher access.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>I do not wish to start a flame war on this list, but to distinguish "public" and researcher" is totally unacceptable to me. I have worked as a scientist for 15 years outside academia and I am not a second class citizen. There are many outside academia who are every bit as good scientists as those inside - they pay the taxes which pay research and pay library subscriptions.<br>
<br></div>There are people who would be dead if they could not have read the medical literature - fortuitously because they happened to be employed by a university. <br><br>P.<br clear="all"></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>
Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>