3 ms·

Academia.edu was very active in working with the White House to spread the word about this petition when it first came out, and getting signatures for the petit

Academia.edu was very active in working with the White House to spread the word about this petition when it first came out, and getting signatures for the petition to hit the 25k threshold. The White House hasn't responded to it because initially they were busy with the election, and then with the fiscal cliff, and now with gun reform. Getting more signatures on the petition now will help them see that people care about this topic.

pmorici 14y ago
Then how do you explain them having time for this; https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-resp...
- RichardPrice 14y ago
  In practice that death star response probably only took an hour or two to write. However, figuring out federal policy on research is really tricky, and there are many stakeholders. The fundamental problem is that the White House would like all research to be open, but every time they take any steps in that direction, they get whacked over the head in the media by the journal industry, and get called job-killers. The journal industry's argument is that any attempt to open up research will reduce their revenues, and kill jobs. The view of most people in this debate is that the journal industry makes far too much money off research, and therefore the size of the industry should be reduced. But in this economic context being branded as a job killer is toxic. The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience.
  - SkyMarshal 14y ago
    >The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience. Do they have a team working on this, and is there any form of crowdsourcing being used to marshall this data?
    - RichardPrice 14y ago
      It's a good question. I expect that the Office of Science and Technology is working on it to some extent, but I am not aware of how deep their efforts are.
- jhuni 14y ago
  They do present a good case in that response: why build a death star when it has a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one man starship?
- lessnonymous 14y ago
  It's a lot easier to say 'no' than 'yes'. We want a 'yes' on this one, so I'm happy for them to work out how they can rather than knee-jerk 'no'.
rdl 14y ago
Ugh, if they delay important things like health care, copyright reform and the economy over gun reform, I'll be angry. I mean, guns are a minor issue. Make them freely available, and some crime stats change somewhat. Completely ban them and do away with 2A, and some crime stats change somewhat, and destroy a relatively small industry. It's not a huge issue either way. Tiny compared to the overall economy, or overseas wars, or the drug war, health care, or copyright, or STEM education, or immigration reform.
- Vivtek 14y ago
  Not to mention I just saw a timely political cartoon about the hot issue of gun reform - from 1881. I don't think it's going to get resolved.

pmorici 14y ago

Then how do you explain them having time for this; https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-resp...

RichardPrice 14y ago
In practice that death star response probably only took an hour or two to write. However, figuring out federal policy on research is really tricky, and there are many stakeholders. The fundamental problem is that the White House would like all research to be open, but every time they take any steps in that direction, they get whacked over the head in the media by the journal industry, and get called job-killers. The journal industry's argument is that any attempt to open up research will reduce their revenues, and kill jobs. The view of most people in this debate is that the journal industry makes far too much money off research, and therefore the size of the industry should be reduced. But in this economic context being branded as a job killer is toxic. The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  >The White House really wants to turn the debate around, and argue that open access for research is a stimulus for jobs: it will create more jobs, not fewer. To argue for that requires marshaling arguments and data from the private sector to establish that if people have access to federally-funded research, that will help them in their lives, and those benefits will outweigh the costs that the journal industry may experience. Do they have a team working on this, and is there any form of crowdsourcing being used to marshall this data?
  - RichardPrice 14y ago
    It's a good question. I expect that the Office of Science and Technology is working on it to some extent, but I am not aware of how deep their efforts are.
jhuni 14y ago
They do present a good case in that response: why build a death star when it has a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one man starship?
lessnonymous 14y ago
It's a lot easier to say 'no' than 'yes'. We want a 'yes' on this one, so I'm happy for them to work out how they can rather than knee-jerk 'no'.

rdl 14y ago

Ugh, if they delay important things like health care, copyright reform and the economy over gun reform, I'll be angry. I mean, guns are a minor issue. Make them freely available, and some crime stats change somewhat. Completely ban them and do away with 2A, and some crime stats change somewhat, and destroy a relatively small industry. It's not a huge issue either way. Tiny compared to the overall economy, or overseas wars, or the drug war, health care, or copyright, or STEM education, or immigration reform.

Vivtek 14y ago
Not to mention I just saw a timely political cartoon about the hot issue of gun reform - from 1881. I don't think it's going to get resolved.