Slashdot Mirror

Actual papers for those interested (it was published simultaneously by three groups): (Nature probably requires subscriptions, the first one is free access)

Nimet Maherali, Rupa Sridharan, Wei Xie, Jochen Utikal, Sarah Eminli, Katrin Arnold, Matthias Stadtfeld, Robin Yachechko, Jason Tchieu, Rudolf Jaenisch, Kathrin Plath, and Konrad Hochedlinger
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fullte xt?uid=PIIS1934590907000203

Keisuke Okita, Tomoko Ichisaka & Shinya Yamanaka
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05934.html

Marius Wernig, Alexander Meissner, Ruth Foreman, Tobias Brambrink, Manching Ku, Konrad Hochedlinger, Bradley E. Bernstein & Rudolf Jaenisch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05944.html

Actual papers for those interested (it was published simultaneously by three groups): (Nature probably requires subscriptions, the first one is free access)

Nimet Maherali, Rupa Sridharan, Wei Xie, Jochen Utikal, Sarah Eminli, Katrin Arnold, Matthias Stadtfeld, Robin Yachechko, Jason Tchieu, Rudolf Jaenisch, Kathrin Plath, and Konrad Hochedlinger
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fullte xt?uid=PIIS1934590907000203

Keisuke Okita, Tomoko Ichisaka & Shinya Yamanaka
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05934.html

Marius Wernig, Alexander Meissner, Ruth Foreman, Tobias Brambrink, Manching Ku, Konrad Hochedlinger, Bradley E. Bernstein & Rudolf Jaenisch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05944.html

Tiny packets or particles of light, photons, were used to teleport information between telescopes on the two islands. The photons did it by quantum entanglement and scientists hope it will form the basis of a way of sending encrypted data."

Paul Revere signalled using tiny packets of particles of light called photons, too.

First Paragraph: Quantum teleportation across the Danube

But of course you have to pay.

Without being able to read the actual paper (when oh when are we going to see researchers publishing information in non-fee journals as a matter of course? they are holding science hostage!) it's hard to say what this actually gains, given that it requires the transmission of a third photon to get useful information out of the original two.

"We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished results and ideas of Dr. M.H.F. Wilkins, Dr. R.E. Franklin, and their co-workers at King's College London"

The information reported in this section was very kindly reported to us prior to its publication by Drs Wilkins and Frankilin. We are most heavily indebted in this respect to the King's College Group, and we wish to point out that without this data the formulation of our structure would have been most unlikely, if not impossible"

Nature: http://npg.nature.com/nature/submit/finalsubmissio n/SI/index.html
# MS Word document (.doc) (preferred)
# Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
# Plain ASCII text (.txt)
# Rich Text Format (.rtf)
# WordPerfect document (.wpd)
# PostScript (.ps)
# Encapsulated postcript (.eps)
# HTML document (.htm)
# MS Excel spreadsheet (.xls)
# GIF image (.gif)
# JPEG image (.jpg)
# TIFF image (.tif)
# MS PowerPoint slide (.ppt)
# QuickTime movie (.mov) (preferred)
# Flash movie (.swf)
# Audio file (.wav)
# MPEG/MPG animation (.mpg)

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/prep_ init.dtl
* .pdf (Adobe Portable Document Format)
* .ps (PostScript)
* .eps (Encapsulated PostScript)
* .prn (Printer file for a PostScript printer)
* .doc (Microsoft Word, version 6.0 and higher) -- note that we cannot accept files in Word 2007 (.docx) format, as explained here.
* .wpd (WordPerfect, version 7.0 and higher)

Science also specifically makes a point to mention:

Also, FTA, the reason that Word 2007 isn't being accepted is:

Here we harness MNLs (molecular nanolayers) at thin-film interfaces at temperatures higher than the MNL desorption temperature to fortify copper-dielectric interfaces relevant to wiring in micro- and nano-electronic devices. Annealing Cu/MNL/SiO2 structures at 400-700 C results in interfaces that are five times tougher than pristine Cu/SiO2 structures, yielding values exceeding approx20 J m-2

"Maybe there's quantuum entanglement ansibles that nobody can intercept, maybe you have subspace radios or telepathy."

True...but why can't we intercept those either? :) Remember the promise of quantum cryptography? UNCRACKABLE they said.... Well it's barely available and there are already papers out on how to crack it (look up Adir Shamir). My point is that if you send information in a medium you don't control someone will probably figure out how to listen to it. It may not be practical...but it always end up possible...

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070423/full/070423 -10.html (for those with a nature subscription)

"If the Cylons are so completely advanced that they can hack through all that and take control of systems immediately, how are they still then even on a level that they're using ships and nuclear bombs?"

I'm no physicist, but I think the answer to the nuclear bomb thing is very simple: a nuclear bomb is the strongest explosion you can get (anti-matter bomb that is). E = mc^2...pure mass to energy conversion. Can you say KaBoum? :)

...Nature Magazine has a job posting board for just science jobs. As of a few minutes ago they have over 3,400 jobs on there.

hair growth can actually be encouraged using a single gene.

Funny thing though. In this week's Nature there is this article where American scientists speculate on an alternative method to promote de novo follicle growth [in mice] via... grazing of the scalp.

I quote the scoop from the New Scientist's entry:
Could a graze on the head help cure baldness? Biologists had thought that once mammals lose their hair follicles, they are gone forever. Now George Cotsarelis at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and his colleagues have shown that adult mice can regenerate follicles when their skin is wounded.

The team cut out a square centimetre of skin from the backs of mice two weeks after their hair follicles had formed. After 14 to 19 days the wounds had closed and formed new. When the researchers added Wnt proteins - signalling molecules usually involved in embryonic development - the number of follicles doubled and the skin healed with less scarring. This suggests that wound healing may trigger an embryonic state in skin, says Cotsarelis. Surprisingly, the new follicles originate from stem cells that are not usually involved in creating hair follicles.

Cotsarelis hopes the findings could lead to new therapies for baldness. "The idea would be to disrupt the skin to trigger the embryonic pathways, and then come in with the Wnt proteins," he says.

You can read a preprint of the published paper for free. (The published version is here, but full text access requires a Nature subscription.)

Nature Magazine has a cautious news story lauding the OLPC while pointing out what nay sayers observe. One concern is that the way they are achieving the price point is to push the marketing, distribution, and maintenence cost onto the buyers (the governements) and that they need to reach scale quickly, which while it probably will happen governments are demurring. If this roll out is a success it may be a big shot in arm convincing the hesitant governments. Perhaps the easiest places to get support will be one-man governments; Would-be "populist" quasi-dictators like Qudaffi is a prime candidate for a large purchase.

There's also an interesting interview with Ron Minnich of LinuxBios, who points out that the OLPC will be a major roll out for OLPC in end user hands (rather than embeds). He says that LinuxBios enables such insanely better power management than traditional bios that it's going to knock everyone's socks off. It will wake instantaneously and conserve power.

Even when operating this thing is miserly: 2 watts.

One of the suggested alternatives in the Nature Article put forward by a prominent nay sayer in India (who will not be going forward with OLPC) are that set-top style web-based apps are a better idea. I Don't actually see how. All the set top boxes currently are more expensive, don't have a screen, the screen will be too far away for it's resolution, and they don't have Key boards. So the OLPC looks pretty good.

The OLPC will automatically detect networks. I wonder if Ron Minnich managed to slide in his other project which is BPROC/Clustermatic which is used at Labs like Los Alamos to create high performance self configuring clusters with minimal cluster operating system overhead. Such a system could provide some incredible computing horsepower despite the low performance of the individual nodes.

Another thing I wonder about is printers. In the developed world anyone who can afford a computer can afford or get access to a printer so paper has never really been factored out of computing. INdeed computers if anything, are an organized way to generate more not less paper docs. In the countries using OLPC, printers won't be available. We may see the rise of paperless computing finally.

Mercury is not tidally locked with the sun, but rotates very slowly at about 3 rotations for every 2 revolutions around the sun.

I forgot my Mercury trivia; they used to think it was locked before they found the 3/2 resonance. Since the resonance is stable, rotational energy is not being affected anymore. But then that means tidal forces are still heating Mercury over a 1400 hour cycle. The heat loss from friction is probably coming out of the orbital energy making the orbit unstable.

And even more, an ocean does not act as any sort of a buffer against gravitational forces from the sun. There's just not a significant enough amount of water even on Earth to do so.

OK, so the water transmits zero torque until there's how much of it then?

Most of the torque being applied to slow the earth down is transmitted at two hydrosphere/lithosphere boundaries: the one between the inner and outer core, and the one between the crust and the oceans. This is because unlike solid rock, fluids are free to slosh around horizontally. The outer core has more mass but the moment arm and surface area are both bigger for the oceanic boundary.

Reduced food intake as a result of dietary restriction increases the lifespan of a wide variety of metazoans and delays the onset of multiple age-related pathologies. Dietary restriction elicits a genetically programmed response to nutrient availability that cannot be explained by a simple reduction in metabolism or slower growth of the organism. In the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the transcription factor PHA-4 has an essential role in the embryonic development of the foregut and is orthologous to genes encoding the mammalian family of Foxa transcription factors, Foxa1, Foxa2 and Foxa3. Foxa family members have important roles during development, but also act later in life to regulate glucagon production and glucose homeostasis, particularly in response to fasting. Here we describe a newly discovered, adult-specific function for PHA-4 in the regulation of diet-restriction-mediated longevity in C. elegans. The role of PHA-4 in lifespan determination is specific for dietary restriction, because it is not required for the increased longevity caused by other genetic pathways that regulate ageing.

Reduced food intake as a result of dietary restriction increases the lifespan of a wide variety of metazoans and delays the onset of multiple age-related pathologies. Dietary restriction elicits a genetically programmed response to nutrient availability that cannot be explained by a simple reduction in metabolism or slower growth of the organism. In the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the transcription factor PHA-4 has an essential role in the embryonic development of the foregut and is orthologous to genes encoding the mammalian family of Foxa transcription factors, Foxa1, Foxa2 and Foxa3. Foxa family members have important roles during development, but also act later in life to regulate glucagon production and glucose homeostasis, particularly in response to fasting. Here we describe a newly discovered, adult-specific function for PHA-4 in the regulation of diet-restriction-mediated longevity in C. elegans. The role of PHA-4 in lifespan determination is specific for dietary restriction, because it is not required for the increased longevity caused by other genetic pathways that regulate ageing.

organic mercury however is not:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v242/n5398/ab s/242452a0.html

As stated in my other post mercury can be converted into organic mercury in landfills.

While I understand the intent of this argument, who's going to draw the line? If we take your view point with regards to scientific papers, does that mean bloggers, reporters, etc should only be allowed to mention what's in the abstract? Is the conclusion verboten because it goes into more details? Is a meta-analysis where you compare the major finding with another major finding crossing the line?

As Asimov said, "There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." In my mind, in the realm of science, knowledge should be shared, especially considering the vast majority is funded with public dollars. Of course, even with journals having publishing policies that require published authors to make it so others can duplicate their experiments easily, this rarely seems to work in practice. (Here's a link to Nature's policy regarding availability of data and materials.) Yea for publish or perish and the ultra-competitive nature of funding . . .

Especially with regards to a scientific paper/article, showing a graph and a short blurb related to it isn't the main intent of the paper. Any researcher who's really going to utilize the material is going to need the full article, as it's neigh impossible to capture a whole scientific paper in a blurb.

A weak analogy here could be that you shouldn't reprint the punchline to a Peanut's comic strip as that would be the major point of the strip . . .

The first discovery of this cyclicity in the appearence/ disappearence of fossil species or genera was published in approximately 1982 by David Raup and Jack Sepkoski (a project that pre-dates the Alvarezs' KT impact hypothesis). They see a 26 million year cyclicity. (Note - that link is to a proponent of the "Nemesis" hypothesis ; don't take this as endorsement of that theory. But the man provides an accessible summary of Raup & Sepkoski).
A few years later people looked at essentially the same data set through different statistical goggles. They came up with a 24 Ma cycle. Others have come up with figures around 30 million years, from the same data. Now someone is extracting figures of around 64 million years. Whoopy-dee!
As a geologist, I'm perfectly open to this sort of hypothesis. Space effects on life-on-Earth? Hey, I've been to Nordlingen - tick the box that says "space can affect life on Earth". But being open to this sort of idea does not mean accepting any presentation that's made. It's entirely possible that the observed variations in historical biodiversity levels are as much a product of variable preservation as of variable historical biodiversity.
My guess - there's a lot of statistical effort applied to "damp down" the effects of the big spike in extinctions at 63~65 million years ago courtesy of (amongst others) the Chixulub impactor ; but the studies all show a spike in extinction frequencies at half, one, or twice the period of the biggest spike in the data set. That sounds to me like over-correction or under correction of the data, not helped by the data set being one-sided (we don't know biodiversity rates for the next 100 million years).

Old Nature article about the periodicity: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7030/fu ll/434147a.html
ArXiv preprint proposing the galactic hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602092

Ummm... wtf? What intoxicant ISN'T a date rape drug?

Dopamine makes you want. Anything that potentiates dopamine, barring more complex interactions, DIRECTLY increases a person's sexual desire. Note: ritalin is a dopaminergic reuptake inhibitor. Adderall is that, and more, causing the brain to release more dopamine into the synaptic gap.

Alcohol reduces inhibitions... I think we're all familiar with how this one works.

Do we classify these as date rape drugs? For fuck's sake, of course not.

But would you want to argue against such egregious, destructive and obvious error? Not if you wanted to be elected - it's too easy to rip on the poor fools naive enough to think of public utility. Which brings me to my point - one that, unfortunately, someone far more sinister than I stated succinctly:

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." - Adolf Hitler

What are they going to do? Attach a PDF of the latest issue of Nature on each can of soup? The risks are technical, complicated, ever-changing, and sometimes politically motivated. This is not something that can be placed onto the package.

It was actually featured in a Slashdot story not long ago:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/1 1/1952201

Unfortunately, the original Nature article is now subscriber only (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061204/full/06120 4-10.html). The guy behind the work is one Dr. Lucia Turin, and he has indeed achieved some commercial success through his company Flexitral.

I would suggest that you also browse some more neutral sources.

This is should be required reading for all climate skeptics.

Scientists have discovered enzymes that can efficiently convert blood groups A, B and AB into the 'universal' O group -- which can be given to anyone but is always in short supply.

The two novel glycosidase enzymes were identified in bacteria by an international team led by Henrik Clausen of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. The researchers hope that the enzymes will both improve the erratic supplies of blood around the world, and also the safety of transfusions. Clinical trials to test the safety and effectiveness of their converted blood are being planned.

The ABO blood-type system is based on the presence or absence of the sugar-based antigens 'A' and 'B' on red blood cells. Type O blood cells have neither A nor B antigens, so may be safely transfused into anyone. But types A, B and AB blood do, and cause life-threatening immune reactions if they are given to patients with a different blood group. The bacterial glycosidase enzymes strip these antigens away from A, B and AB blood.

The idea of such antigen-stripping goes back to the early 1980s, with the discovery of an enzyme in coffee beans that removes B antigens from red blood cells1. Early-stage clinical trials showed that the converted blood could be safely transfused into individuals of different blood groups; no traces of enzyme or antigen remained to cause reactions2. But the enzyme reaction was far too inefficient to make large-scale conversion practical.

Clausen's team screened 2,500 extracts from different bacteria and fungi for their ability to cleave off A and B antigens. The newly discovered bacterial 'B' enzyme is nearly 1,000 times more efficient then the coffee-bean B enzyme -- the additional discovery of an enzyme to remove A antigens means that all blood types can now be converted. The work is reported in Nature Biotechnology3.
(snip)

you could provide links, if you wanted....

Personally, I'm less interested in global warming than the influence the increased CO2 levels we're causing (this part is incontrovertable fact, btw) is having on the pH of the ocean. We may run out of fish, and CO2 fixing bacteria well before we melt all the ice caps.

For example, did you know that A picture with a report in the National Briefing column on Saturday about a revelation by Fife Symington, the former governor of Arizona, that he saw a U.F.O. in 1997 was published in error in some copies. The photograph showed Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky, not Mr. Symington. Missed that on the BBC this morning, but there it is on the Times online corrections for the day:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections .html

But feel free to miss the larger point, feh.

As for Wikipedia itself, anyone who has read much about its accuracy knows that it is relatively close to the online edition of Encylopedia Britannica, at least in terms of the areas that the British journal Nature looked at:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900 a.html [nature.com]

However, an expert-led investigation carried out by Nature -- the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia and Britannica's coverage of science -- suggests that such high-profile examples are the exception rather than the rule.

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. In other words, Wikipedia is exactly what we learned in elementary school (or should have): encyclopedias are good starting points but are not single sources. They are good to tell you who won the 1983 NCAA men's basketball championship (NC State) but not necessarily authoritive on hot-button political issues like abortion, etc., and that a resposible and careful researcher would go to that dusty old anachronism, the library.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html

Or didn't you read the linked NYT article? That's how science works.

No, but it was linked in the main article and gave a reasonably accurate synopsis of the Nature article. Nature has an abstract of the article on their website, but you must be a paying subscriber to read the full article online, which few /.ers are, I assume. You can read the full text at any university library and at many public libraries. Which of these do you plan to do to confirm your original statement?

Hello All, An article on Nature.com has images of geometric shapes that form in spinning water. The second image in the article is very similar to the Saturn pole images on the NASA site. ( http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html ) I think it is interesting that the NASA article states that Saturn's exact rate of rotation is not known...could its rotation be of an unexpected velocity that can cause the geometric shape to form on the pole just like those that form in spinning cylinders of water? - Quasifrodo

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html

You mean, specifically, "Swinney, meanwhile, thinks that the process is unlikely to apply to large-scale flows such as that on Saturn, but might be relevant to smaller-scale phenomena such as tornadoes."

Original article

Same resonant pattern in the bucket at http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html

Wasn't there a story here within the last six months or so about spinning a bucket of water at the right speed and having it form geometric forms, including a hexagon?

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515 -17.html

Posted AC so as not to be accused of being a karma whore.

Actually, according to these people, swimming in molasses should be about as fast as swimming in water. They won the Ig-Nobel Award for Chemistry in 2005 for that work, too.

Not always. Nature doesn't require copyright assigment, but instead "Authors grant NPG an exclusive licence to publish, in return for which they can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from the publisher of the journal. "

Nature does apparently encourage authors to submit the author's manuscript (unedited) to the author's instution or on the Author's website for public release six months after publication in Nature.

"but you are relying on unscientific methods..."

Really? Are you sure it's just unscientific speculation?

(apologise for including a fox news link, I think my point stands nonetheless)

"to conduct your 'survey' and concluding based on these biased methods (that you created) that your results are the only results possible"

My survey? Biased methods? That I created? All those articles aren't quoting me you know! I wasn't even alive for the 1958 study!

"Btw something which has 'exceptions' doesn't make 'fact' status"

Did I say 'fact' or did I say 'trend'? (problems with vocabulary recall?) I think you'll find it was the latter (and here's the link to my post if you're in doubt)... although, it is a fact that there is a trend, as the numerous research projects have shown. The fact that there are exceptions is what makes it a trend, not a law.

Is this evidence of a Pliocene love that dare not speak its name? Not according to Reed. He and his colleagues suggest that hominids might have gotten crabs by eating gorilla flesh, perhaps scavenging a carcass. Or they might have slept at nesting sites that gorillas contaminated with their lice. This study just so happens to have come out a few months after another team of scientists showed that chimpanzees not only gave humans HIV but also gave gorillas a related strain of the virus. If chimpanzees can give gorillas a blood-borne virus, it's not too surprising that gorillas could give hominids some lice.

This is an olg issue, publishd in 2000, then for further comments on this get the whole "letter" to nature at this link: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/pd f/406277a0.pdf

Just to add a bit to the information you've given. The link to the abstract (and thus also the full text PDF) is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/ab s/406277a0.html.

I haven't read it yet, probably will later today, but at first glance I see nothing wrong with the article, it just seems that the way they've written it is...a bit sensationalist. If you don't believe the claims they've made, it was published in 2000, so I'm sure theres plenty to learn about this article...and also, they did have a great list of citations. Keep in mind, this is a letter, it's not the exact same thing as a normal journal article, there is a limit to length, four pages I believe. I don't really read Nature, but with my limited experience reading journals, occasionally you will see in a letter (in say, Phys. Rev. Lett.) the author reference their own journal article (perhaps in Phys. Rev. D) for a more detailed description etc.

The only kind of planetary warming that has relevance to Earth is warming due to increase in solar output, because that is the only factor Earth shares in common with other planets.

Solar output has been increasing for some time. However:

1. The warming on Mars is not due to an increase in solar output; solar output actually decreased slightly over the period that its warming was observed. (It's also not global warming, but rather regional warming of Mars's south pole.) See here.

2. According to the article you cite, the warming on Pluto is not due to an increase in solar output. It is due to orbital variations: Pluto recently passed perihelion.

3. According to the article you cite, the warming on Triton is not due to an increase in solar output. It is due to changes in surface albedo (the amount of solar radiation that the planet reflects vs. absorbs).

4. According to the article you cite, the climate changes on Jupiter are not due to an increase in solar output. They are due to changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. (It's also not clear from that article whether the overall effect is global warming; there is warming at the equator and cooling at the poles.)

In short, other planets don't tell us much about global warming on Earth. Even if they were all warming for the same reason, that reason would have to be solar output, and we don't need to study other planets in order to know about that: we can measure solar output directly.

As it turns out, solar output isn't sufficient to explain the observed global warming. It has been increasing overall, but not by very much. It explains a little bit of the warming, but not most of it. See this article for more details (subscription required).

Instead of continuing to operate and pumping out even more CO2? And you are assuming that regulators will not fix market failure. And your statement about relative concentrations is wrong

Here's a link to the abstract. Don't think you can get the full article without some sort of subscription.

Anti-reflection coatings are nothing new. Their used all the time in optics. What's new about this acts as a broadband anti-reflection coating. If this can be transferred to commercial production it would have a huge impact on optical equipment.

All the reasons made for the continuation of the status quo are just excuses that benefit only the owners of the journals. One justification for the high cost of the journals is printing. But who really needs to go to the library to read the Journal of Biological Chemistry or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in their dead tree format anyway? If a library really needs a paper copy, perhaps they can just send out the PDFs to a third-party printer to print and bind it. I don't think we need Elsevier to do the printing and distribution. The internet already performs the distribution process very efficiently. So the traditional for-profit scientific journal publishers need to go the way of blacksmiths and scabbard makers. As for the world's premier science journal, Nature, perhaps Google or the Gates Foundation or Warren Buffet can just ask them what is their projected profit from the sales of subscriptions and archived articles for the next 10 years, pay them twice that amount, secure the copyright to past articles and future publication the journal and hire the entire editorial board. I don't think it would cost a lot. Now that would be a service to mankind.

FTFA:
Indeed, soon after the launch of the European petition, Nature reported that publishers were preparing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to counter open access support with a message that equates public access to government censorship.

The Nature article being referenced
The Slashdot Story about the article

"[Dezenhall the consultant] hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review"

"Brian Crawford, a senior vice-president at the American Chemical Society and a member of the [Association of American Publishers] executive chair, says that Dezenhall's suggestions have been refined and that the publishers have not to his knowledge sought to work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. On the censorship message, he adds: "When any government or funding agency houses and disseminates for public consumption only the work it itself funds, that constitutes a form of selection and self-promotion of that entity's interests""

I don't really think that logic makes sense, but these guys are feeling a bit desperate, considering that their profit margin/business model could be legislated into oblivion.

zCyl (14362)
They're trying to insinuate that public access means a thing must be funded by the government, and thus subject to state control. This is a silly false dichotomy of course, but such is the nature of propaganda.

In this article, apparently even Mr. Taleyarkhan is frustrated by the secret panel that exonerated him. And this article says about the panel, "Purdue's finding is as mysterious as bubble fusion itself".