<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM, CHARLES OPPENHEIM <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:c.oppenheim@btinternet.com" target="_blank">c.oppenheim@btinternet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font:inherit" valign="top">The author is the City/Economics Editor of Daily Mail I believe. That makes the lack of research and the taking of an unnamed organisation's statement as gospel truth all the more unacceptable. This would have been bad for a rookie journalist, but for a respected senior journalist, well, words fail me.<div>
<br></div><div><a href="http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html" target="_blank">http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html</a><br>
</div></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br>Words don't fail me and I have blogged it (<a href="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/18/does-open-access-cause-cancer-or-cure-it/">http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/06/18/does-open-access-cause-cancer-or-cure-it/</a> ). The DM has a different approach to "truth" from some of us and this is widely know among scientists. Today's report is in the same style as its cancer reports:<br>
<a href="http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/">http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/</a><br>where substance X is harmful today and beneficial tomorrow. <br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font:inherit" valign="top"><br></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><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>