Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Molecules
manganese4 writes "They've been discussed before in relation to Google, but the American Chemical Society has launched a new effort against perceived competitors. They are attempting to limit the government's ability to freely publish the results of scientific work paid for by tax dollars. The British journal Nature and the Univeristy of California reports on efforts by the ACS in attempting to shutdown a free database, PubChem, of molecular structures because it competes head to head with the fee-for-service Chemical Abstract Service. Their rationale is that the government should not spend taxpayer dollars on something private business is already doing. Luckily the government has not backed down."
For instance, private and public health care as well as transportation work very well together.
The owls are not what they seem
Guess we can shut down public schools then, now, eh?
Their rational is that...
That's rationale, you illiterate clod.
I guess your government shouldn't be paying for any of the research either, then, including the research done by graduate and doctoral students. Maybe time to send a bill to every company employing one of those people?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I'm generally against the idea of the government spending money obtained through illegal, coercive measures (read: taxes) on much of anything. That said, scientific research is probably one of the best uses they can make of the money they steal from us... so as long as they're going to continue stealing our money, I think resources like this should be kept freely available to the public. After all, we **already paid for it.**
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Government shouldn't pay for something that the private sector is already doing. Full stop.
So if I start my own fire brigade I should demand that publicly funded fire fighing be outlawed?
Libraries should be closed since booksellers are missing out on sales?
Private schols certainly have a distorted market with public schools being provided.
Who decides what is critical for the government to provide? Would you not say that health care, for instance, falls under providing safety?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
The question of whether governments should finance research is a separate issue.
http://redcone.net
A government is an entity which should protect a group of people's interests, namely the citizens of a nation. This includes science.
Also, i believe that scientific knowledge is not even the property of humanity, let alone a corporation. It is fine that they want to sell that information as long as a free choice exists, but when they try to get rid of that free "competition", then we need to take a stand. Science should be open for everyone, the application of science is where companies should strive for profit.
It is possible to consider science the ultimate law of the universe, thus if viewed from this perspective restricting scientific knowledge would be the same as damaging a person's freedom.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Your libertarian ideology, as ever, has little thought for practical matters.
Libertarians argue, for instance, that there should be no public health care and that people should have to pay. Ignoring the fact that it is rather inhumane to demand payment for healing someone, this results in poor people suffering as they cannot afford medical bills. What, exactly, is wrong with a government monopoly over this? By promoting private health care, libertarians are, in effect, causing illness and lowering the life expectency of fellow human beings. I simply say, put yourself in their shoes.
Another example: here in the UK we have the BBC. The BBC's website is probably one of the most linked-to websites from Slashdot, because it is a fantastic public interest resort. It's publically funded. UK citizens, on trips to the US, comment how low quality, and advert-rife, US television is compared to even commercial channels in the UK. This is because the BBC ups the standard and creates a high level for other channels to achieve. Note that the BBC is not the only provider of TV channels!
The government's job is (or should be!) to keep people alive. Sure, this should be done by having a military, police and courts. But everyone loses out if we allow corporations to monopolise fundamental human rights like the most important of all, the right to life.
Libertarianism is too much an ideology, with too little thought for the real world. Please reconsider your views, with more compassion for people who are likely to suffer because of them.
Chris
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
Perhaps you're right, but the research done for this database was done using tax money, not private money. If the database was managed by a private institution, that would mean tax payers would pay for it twice.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
You're right. Publicly funded research should be abolished. Nothing that has ever come out of any public university should be available for free. Who needs such things as theory of relativity, quantum theory, Space programs with all the technology coming from it.
Give me abreak...there is too much work that needs to be done, but that no company would do, because it doesn't pay off quickly enough. See, I'm not even saying not paying off. Just not paying off in the same year, or the next year.
See all the hoopla about the cell processor. That was a joint venture of 3 of the biggest private corporations out there...and one of the biggest undertakings of private enterprises. The investment was something like 2 billions, the timeframe was something like 4 years. That is about the most extreme limit any private research and enginieering project would go. Any research, that needs more time and dedication simply wouldn't exist without payment of the gouvernment.
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
should we also accept that it is the government's job to provide that medicine?
Speaking as someone who has benefited directly and indirectly from a nationalised health service, I say yes, most certainly it is.
Hell, it's rare that I actually require its services, but I don't bergudge the tax I pay to support it at all. Just because *I* don't need it, doesn't mean that my friends and loved ones don't. Even if they don't, people will, and I for one don't mind paying a little extra every month to help make society that little bit better.
Let me ask yo ua question: why must everything be about profit? Why can some things not be done simply because it is the right thing to do?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
One of the methods of thought in the US is that, because our system of laws is (in theory) based purely on logic and not on emotional appeal. Please stop using emotional appeals to get laws passed ("Think of the children!"). Instead, try something like "providing universal health care will decrease crime, and by transitivity, prevent the use of force."
Oh, and I forgot to mention - despite having the NHS here in the UK, we still have a thriving private healthcare system, for those who have the money to pay for it.
Just because the government provides something for the good of all, doesn't mean that companies will find it impossible to make money providing the same thing. It's just like any other form of competition - you just have to find a way to differentiate your offering, and make it more compelling to some section of the target demographic.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"When will society become outraged at the corporate mindset?"
When it stops working so well. The corporate mindset produces what my classmates would term a "fuckton of money", which makes "a Utopian world where even the poorest can live comfortably" an actual possibility instead of the unattainable, wild goose chase that most slashdotters would use the ideal as in order to trick people into conforming to their stupid ideas regarding economics.
There. Was that outraged enough for ya? I can add more smouldering rhetoric, if you want.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The government's job is to make sure the citizenry is protected against foreign invaders, provide a reasonable level of safety, and provide a forum in which aggrieved parties can have an impartial entity adjudicate issues. In short: Military, Police, and Courts. The government should protect its citizens from private industry's attempt to gain sole ownership and control of information.
Attacking the argument because it sounds like Libertarianism invalidates your response on rhetorical grounds, just as I would invalidate my response if I attacked you as a Socialist. Your comparison of television quality is not relevant to the issues at hand.
IMO, if the government (read the taxpayers) pays for the research, then the results should be distributed. It is no longer proprietary, and the ACS has no right to lock up the information.
The other issue is, "Should the government be paying for the research?" Well, IMO, the only legitimate use of the national government is for National Defense and the administration of Justice.
The strength of our administration of justice (which is certainly NOT perfect) is well illustrated by the ease with which we in the US can obtain title or ownership of private property such as cars and land, compared to say, Central America or Mexico.
When the government re-allocates confiscated wealth (tax dollars), it funds inefficient industries and gives an unfair advantage to a select few. In the US, this has never been demonstrated more clearly than government funding of the railroads: The only profitable, efficient railroad in the American West was the Great Northern, which was unsupported by government funds and financed by Henry Hill and investors. We won't know what effect the the government has on our industrial development until some time in the future when we can look back and analyze it. I'm pretty certain that government programs are somewhat beneficial, but I believe that private enterprise would be more beneficial in the long run.
Who knows what chemical research is not being done because there's more funding in a competitive area?
Also, in my mind, a bigger question is not, "Should they?" or "Shouldn't they?", but "What is the best way of overcoming the shortcomings of both paths?"
Now, on a personal note: I'm NOT a big fan of the UK. They have one of the worst records for civil rights of any government on earth, my "Economist Pocket World in Figures" indicates that the US purchasing power is second-highest in the world and about 20% greater than the UK, Canada, Japan and Germany, I'm apalled that the people of the UK let the government confiscate their personal property (such as weapons collections after the 1988 Security Act), and that, while homicides have declined in the UK, other violent crime is growing significantly, that heart transplants and bypasses (which can be gotten in the US within a couple of weeks) take an average of 3 months in the UK (if they will let you have one), and much, much more.
Oh, yeah, British TV sucks (boring), but people who live their lives to suck on the glass teat get what they deserve. American TV isn't any better.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
If you read what the Constitution is based on (John Locke's writings, primarily), you will see that the origins of our system are based on the idea that the Constitution is a paper document which delineates goals and rules, and in order to have a fair society, emotion must be avoided when making decisions.
Murder is logical because the US was founded on the principles of preventing the use of force (a Libertarian ideal, mind you), and preventing/punishing murder is preventing/discouraging the use of force.
"Their rational is that the government should not spend taxpayer dollars on something private business is already doing"
Of course, you can turn this around: private business shouldn't spend its investor's money on something the government is already doing.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Libertarians argue, for instance, that there should be no public health care and that people should have to pay.
Yep.
Ignoring the fact that it is rather inhumane to demand payment for healing someone, this results in poor people suffering as they cannot afford medical bills.
Possibly. There is also charity.
What, exactly, is wrong with a government monopoly over this?
There's at least four problems with this. One, you don't control how your money is spent. Two, government is much more wasteful than an informed consumer. Three, by shirking off medical matters to government one no longer feels compelled to offer charity to others. There's always the excuse that the government is funding medical matters, so why help? Fourth, when the government ends up becoming tied up with medical companies (for example, look at pharmaceutical companies in the US) it's incredibly difficult to excise the corruption and restore the nominally overflated rate of government decisions.
By promoting private health care, libertarians are, in effect, causing illness and lowering the life expectency of fellow human beings.
Ah, I didn't realize that private health care caused illnes. Perhaps you meant promotes illness?
I simply say, put yourself in their shoes.
I'll put myself in their shoes. And I'll be incredibly pissed off because service X is considered too expensive with my HMO plan and my family can't pay for it and there's no time to have a charity drive. Or maybe it isn't considered too expensive, but I'll spend the rest of my life paying off medical bills. Of course, in a public health care system, I'd just die (I doubt service X would be available readily, if at all, under public health care).
Of course, that's also the option of death in private health care if I can't find a hospital to take care of me when I can't pay. But, that really comes down to hospitals having the charity to treat those who are in need even when they can't pay. That's just as true in a public health care system. The government can't with the wave of a magic wand or any fixed amount of value in money make everyone better. As much as I fear dying, I'd rather die than see a lot of people needlessly throw their money (ie, their time and energy) on a hopeless case because they're unwilling to admit that people do eventually die and there are limits where one should try. Of course below that limit, I hope that they have the compassion to freely help me if I am unable to pay. But how can I demand that by force of others?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Let me ask yo ua question: why must everything be about profit? Why can some things not be done simply because it is the right thing to do?
Not everything must be about profit. Things should be done because they're the right thing to do. That doesn't mean it's okay to force people to do the right thing. A Libertarian and a Conservative aren't the same things. Conservatives care about money. Libertarians care about liberty. Sure there might be lots of SOB Libertarians who wouldn't help you if you're in need (hardly a Libertarian-centric trait), but some of us just want to help you because we think it's the right thing to do, not because we have the choice of helping or punishment*; when you receive charity from ones you love and care for it is quite different from a check from the government.
So, maybe it is a bit delusional to think everyone will do the right thing (I don't believe that's true). But doing something which is clearly not right (punishing* people for not helping) obviously isn't a solution.
*The punishment I speak of is through government force, be it through the taking of money or the imprisonment for failure to comply. Social punishment (ie, not talking to them, trying to make them feel shame for not being helpful, etc) is certainly fine because they can ignore you; of course that risks burning bridges, but it's their right to take such risks.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
If your arguments are true then American health care should be better than in countries that have a publicly provided health service
:)
Not necessarily. That's the irony of the American system. It's so corrupt right now that it's already beaten out the wholly public health care systems in other country. What do I mean by that? On the one hand, the US pays subsidies to pharmaceutical companies. On the other hand, the US pays out more per capita on health care than the UK--the US doesn't spend it on everyone, though. As I recall, healthcare in the US is almost twice as much in the US than the UK. Obviously funneling money to medical companies then paying about lots more than what other governments pay for those on medicare/medicaid is just a huge funneling of tax payer money into medical companies. Now, maybe some of this somehow trickles into new treatments that are cheaper in other countries because they don't have to do all the R&D, but a large part of that is just another way to hide pork spending being funneled to a certain industries.
Of course, even if all of the above were not true, it's possible that the public health care system would be cheaper for a while. It'd be in the long term that there'd be the tyranny, the revolts, etc. The US just happens to have a hybrid system that went corrupt a lot faster. Perhaps that's because it was hybrid.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Students would be more likely to afford college on their own if the government didn't take the tax money used to fund such grants.
FDA can be privatised-- food companies pay to get their products checked and are then authorised to use the FDA-approved logo. Let the people have an option to risk non-approved food if they so wish.
Government should not be involved in education, period.
A private company could be responsible for the roads just as easily as government could. There's too many lights as it is, though.
People only care about electrical standards because of what is commonly used by electrical appliances.
You can refuse to use a bank run by idiots w/o cryptography-- they will either adapt or go out of business.
If it's the will of certain people to pay for a chemical database, then those people can pay an annual fee to some private company.
Luke-Jr
By this reckoning, Government should shut down police forces because we have private security firms we can all hire. ...or they should be prohibited from offering free municipal wireless services because there are existing ISPs that can charge to do it.
When did government begin existing at the behest of profiteers?
OK. Take a deep breath. While I'm as anti-corporate as anybody on Slashdot (maybe even more than most), this is a terrible example of what you're ranting about.
The ACS is a non-profit organization. They have spent several years working on their database, and it's quite usable and useful. It's also very expensive to curate this information by hand, and so they have to charge for access, which is paid not by individuals, but by universities, who pay for it with - ultimately - taxpayer dollars (tuition charges don't pay for much outside of the students direct costs these days).
The ACS isn't really saying "you can't do this because it hurts our profits!" - they're saying "why bother?" For what it's going to cost the Feds to reproduce this data they could likely subsidize the ACS's costs and open access to all. I'm fairly certain the ACS would be happy to receive (another) large federal grant for their efforts.
When are we going to come up with a term to replace "Source"? Open source only works if there is "Source" involved. As in "Source Code".
How about just saying "Open" leave "Source" off.