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
Data mining is becoming more and more important for science. But you can't do data mining if the data is locked up and requires cumbersome and costly subscriptions to access.
Chemical, biological, and other scientific databases need to be open, free, and freely redistributable for science and technology to continue to make rapid progress.
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.
When Osama Bin Laden will apply for US govt to remove and stop funding the US Army, because private parties (him) own private military groups?
Corporate-owned Police, IRS replaced by Mafia, and of course schools under management of MTV. Go Private Property!
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
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
In other words, you belive that if the government provides a service it will do so cheaper and better than the private sector, and push them out of the market. I simply don't belive that. The only way that can happen is if public companies manage to change the law in their favour. Otherwise, free competition will in the long run favour the private sector.
All these companies that are complaining about the government taking away their profit by competing with them are doing is whine about the fact that they're losing grip of their monopoly and have to start competing. If the private sector is so bad at providing a service that even public companies are able to compete with them, they truly need the competition.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
When will society become outraged at the corporate mindset? The mindset that says that society can not be enriched if it costs the corporation or in this case the "not-for-profit" organization?
It is unfortunate that the only way that society can protect itself is to become and stay fighting mad. I don't want to be angry all of the time but the world is filled with greedy assholes who would turn our world into a hopeless pit of poverty if left unchecked.
Can a Utopian world where even the poorest among us can live comfortably and a corporate world where piggy CEOs can slurp up million dollar salaries coexists? If not, I for one choose Utopia.
So I say to all of the greedy sons-of-bitches "Don't get in the way of a better world. Adapt or die!"
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Just from glancing at the PubChem site, it seems like its main function at the moment is to find journal articles relevant to a given chemical. This is probably what worries the ACS most, as there are already plenty of databases online that provide info about chemical properties (such as the NIST Chemistry Webbook or the Spectral Database Server), they just don't link to journal articles. It would be fairly outrageous for the ACS to complain about these.
At any rate, the ACS's complaints seem pretty silly to me, as I only know of a few systems for finding chem journal articles (CAS, Beilstein and SciFinder Scholar). I would guess they're all horrendously expensive, and only accessible to individuals at university libraries, so a free system like this would certainly be great for the average citizen. Additionally, it may well be worth the government's while, in terms of cost, to develop a free system for their own use.
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"
Who finds it ironic that Nature charges for access to an article championing free access to information?
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
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.
This type of thinking reminds me of Europe in the Middle Ages. Guilds were then allowed to regulate (read monopolise) all branches of industry and trade, backed by government enforcers. Even the most basic information was "trade secret" and not to be revealed to non guildmembers. The perfect job protection scheme, and one of the reasons that Europe was at that time eclipsed by the Arab world in scientific, medical, and technological achievements. I submit that the Government, in looking after the public interest, has every right to support valuable generation (universities) and dissemination (universities and this online service) of knowledge. And since when did the ACS acquire copyright on basic chemical knowledge?
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.
Government shouldn't pay for something that the private sector is already doing. Full stop.
"Full stop"? Oh brother.
As a tax-payer, I'm rather more concerned that my tax-dollars be spent well and for good-purpose.
Often private companies can indeed do a better job, and it's good if the government gets out of the way in such cases (easier said than done of course).
However, sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. Some tasks are accompanied by burdens of transparency, accountability, fairness, etc., and efficiency isn't the most important factor; in such cases the a government agency may just work better in practice, despite inefficiency.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
That being said it is strange that they are so vehemently against an NIH database which is primary geared towards biological compounds (i.e. proteins and nucleic acids and derivatives) which is pretty orthogonal to most of the chemical research world. But it would be a gross oversimplification to paint the ACS as an evil money grubbing organization.
Besides, chemists are rarely evil. Science fiction proves it's always an overweight doctor come-geneticist played by marlon brando that's evil.
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.
I recall a recent story about NOAA data. How Accuweather had some beef with publicly available weather informaiton, which the tax payers had already paid for, because they were trying to sell it.
I for one do not feel like paying for the same thing twice.
"The government's job is (...) Military, Police, and Courts."
There is no such thing as an intrinsic State mission. Anarcho-capitalist theorists such as Murray Rothbard suggest to privatize military, police and courts.
In a nation, the authority's job is whatever the people decide it is. This can be as little or as much as they want. It is a mere matter of taste.
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!"
His college transcript is better than the president's. Let that be a lesson to us: your permanent record really does follow you around.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
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.
Total BS.
You do realize that the government gives grants and scholarships to students right?
I think you have a very naive view of the role of Government. It's not just to play police but also to make sure the various facets of your daily life go smoothly.
Do you like food that doesn't kill you or drugs that are effective? That's the FDA.
Do you like knowing you won't be defrauded by huge companies [*] or investment scams? That's SEC.
Do you like knowing that your kids can go to a school where there are minimal standards that are required to advance? That's another facet of state government.
Do you like driving on roads with street signs and lights?
Do you like electricity that follows north american standards?
Do you like standard cryptography that can protect [**] your banking and medical transactions?
etc, etc, etc...
The government has a hand in many aspects of your daily life that you either ignore or didn't know about.
Yes, all these things could be ran by the CEO of their respective companies. Schools could have their own curriculum and standards. Water plants could have their own levels of "clean enough". etc, etc, etc...
You vote for your government to represent you on these issues. That's why you have NIST for example.
In the case of a chemical database there is no reason why a publicly funded org can't do it. If it's the will of the people then so be it.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"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?
Service.java:2: illegal combination of modifiers: public and private
public private void service() {
^
1 error
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
he gets paid more than the president?
Most of the executives of mid-to-large sized companies make more than the president. And that includes "non-profit" companies, which just mean they don't generate any net revenue, not that their employees don't make a ton of money out of some mythical sense of benevolence (although, non-profits do have an amazing ability to con such benevolent people into volunteering at the lowest levels, doing the gruntwork for free so the CEO can take home 2.5 million instead of a mere 1.7 million).
On the other hand, harboring a database like this, seems to me outside of the public interest.
No, the database itself most definitely does serve the public interest... Trying to secure exclusive access to that data, however, does not.
Personally, I had the apparently-erroneous belief that you couldn't copyright/patent/trademark/whatever mere facts, only the application of those facts, or the layout of specific collections of those facts. So, while the ACS could stop someone from downloading their entire database and reselling access to it, they don't have much say in someone else offering their own version of the same basic information.
Then again, I also would have thought you couldn't patent trivial boolean operators such as XOR. Silly me.
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
The ACS is a useless organization, and I speak as a practicing chemist of many years. Nothing - and let me repeat this for emphasis - nothing that they have done has ever had any positive impact on my job or career. I toss their monthly letter inviting me to rejoin unopened into the trash. It would be money flushed down the toilet. They could disappear tomorrow, and I would not notice. Except for less junk mail, I guess.
Can you tell that I think they are a bunch of worthless pantloads? Just checking.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Obviously the government shouldn't have a police force, since that takes businress away from private security companies. Nor should the government run schools, since that takes money away rom private education. And having an army is unfair competition for mercenaries.
If molecules are open source, then people will be able to make them in their own homes, without appropriate supervision or regulation. Many people may not be aware of the following facts about molecules.
-All known chemical poisons are made of molecules.
-Osama bin Laden's men were carrying molecules when they boarded the aircraft destined to strike the WTC towers. It is believed these molecules were used in the attack.
-Molecules are frequently used as part of copyright infringement schemes. Bootleg DVDs contain high concentrations of molecules.
-Weapons of mass destruction contain molecules.
Please, will someone think of the of children?
~Idarubicin
These started as entirely volunteer groups, and most today (in the US) are still volunteer groups, although tax supported (but not entirely funded) volunteer groups.
Don't think so. The Romans certainly had organized bucket brigades, but London got its first coordinated fire response when a load of insurance companies (note, that's *private* insurance companies) started selling fire insurance after the Great Fire in 1666. They would refuse to stop a fire in burning property that they hadn't insured, and that was marked as such with a visible plaque. If you happened to be a competitor insurance company and wanted to move into an area, it would be a night's work with a torch to bankrupt your competitors.
It does make more sense to keep certain services public, either because they are vital to the future of the country (a la education), or because the general public stands to get utterly screwed over by private investors (a la health care, fire services, etc)
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Back in April, the ACS slammed the door shut for data mining with the CAS databases with a new set of license terms. These new conditions prohibit the use of CAS data with data mining tools.
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?
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.
Wow. I just used pubchem last week, and I use it often, for doing work at my school. How can they take away something like this? All that would do is limit my learning, and my classmates learning. And we wouldn't pay for this stuff, it's expected to be free. Anyway, I can generate most of this stuff for free with all the chemistry gunk I have on my school linux cluster. How is their arguement valid?! This is like taking away an open source operating system like linux, because it has the possibility of interfering with Microsoft's business? Absolutely wacko.
NCBI, the suborganization of NIH that hosts pubChem, has the goal of offering comprehensive biomedical research databases. Primarily this is protein/DNA sequences as well as structures and links to literature. But proteins interact with small molecules ('chemicals'), and every living organism contains hundreds of thousands of these different molecules (see metabolomics). PubChem provides information about these molecules in the context of biomedical research. So we see PubChem is essential for NCBI's objective.