Slashdot Log In
Open Source Molecules
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Jun 20, 2005 03:52 AM
from the chemistry-for-the-people dept.
from the chemistry-for-the-people dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, private and public health care as well as transportation work very well together.
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:2)
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, sure, but isn't it essential for a business to come up with something that justifies the cost of their services? In healthcare business private clinics you get to see a specialist sooner. In public transportation it means being able to get a taxi instead of having to wait for a bus/underground.
It's outrageout to say "we produce the same data, so the government should get out of our business". ACS should come up with other services (data mining, consultation,...) by which it differentiates itself from the free service.
Parent
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's the goverment's role (on behalf of the people, remember) to reply by saying "so?".
It's always possible that the people would be better of if the company has "unfair" competition from subsidised government services, or even is put out of business by this. In theory, governments serve people before companies.
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a big fan of small government, but in my book, small government means fewer laws and the possibility for the government to take swift action. If it the private sector is overpricing something that can benefit the community, I don't see why there should be laws agains the government providing a little competition.
Parent
Re:Private and public are not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Informative)
Um, I'm Swedish, and that's rather an overstatement. Private health care is certainly allowed - you're not allowed to use your public health insurance for it, though, but have to pay out of your own pocket. Quite different.
And what kind of private transportation is not allowed?
Because they are. (Score:4, Funny)
Service.java:2: illegal combination of modifiers: public and private
public private void service() {
^
1 error
Parent
it's essential that these databases be open (Score:5, Interesting)
Chemical, biological, and other scientific databases need to be open, free, and freely redistributable for science and technology to continue to make rapid progress.
by that logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess we can shut down public schools then, now, eh?
Re:by that logic (Score:2)
Law enforcement can be outsourced to some good company who could make law enforcement robots with human brains, too!
Stop wasting taxplayers' money on something that can be done well by profit making companies!
Re:by that logic (Score:3, Interesting)
Police , forget about it . countless security companies and organised crime rackets to do protection.
Review of laws and making new laws , well there are plenty of private companies who can review legal papers.
Budget , who needs the cabinet , Plenty of accountancy firms
Who needs public libraries when there are book shops.
Re:by that logic (Score:3, Interesting)
But, as long as you bring it up, government funded and regulated education is a horrible scam. It's wasteful, it's ineffective, in many cases it repropagates complete falsehoods (eg. Pearl Harbor, the reason why the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the motives and causes behind the 1929 stock market crash, the Great Depression, and the creation of the Federal Reserve), and in today's worl
Adjective != Noun (Score:2, Insightful)
That's rationale, you illiterate clod.
Well, then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should you, as a taxpayer who doesn't give a rat's butt about advanced research in niche fields like Density Functional Theory, or 3+2 cyclizations, or Palladium catalyzed cross-coupling, be forced to pay for the infrastructure for the government to make this information available to you?
I'm a chemist, I like this stuff but this is really information that should be on a subscription basis. If you like it, you'll
Re:Well, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you, as a taxpayer, already paid for said advanced research, because it's important for the greater good of the nation and private companies won't fund it. Why should you then be forced to pay a private entit
Re:Well, then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because we live in a society. Because we understand that the point of research is not solely to have direct, obvious applications to everybody's life. Basic research benefits the society in many indirect ways, and th
So when... (Score:5, Funny)
Corporate-owned Police, IRS replaced by Mafia, and of course schools under management of MTV. Go Private Property!
As a Libertarian... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a Libertarian... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a extremist stance that has been discussed many times [google.se].
If taxation is theft, you should refuse to pay taxes, but if you do, the repo men will come and invade your property, at which time you will be forced to defend yourself and your propery, which will lead to police actions that most probably result in your death. If you however survive, you will be sent to prison where you in all probability will be raped. Hence, taxation is also either murder or rape. But we already knew the latter.
Parent
Re:As a Libertarian... (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely not. Your FUD is so ludicrous as to not even be worth consideration. You're speaking of yourself and what would happen if you were the State. Libetarians don't think they are superor or better than anyo
Adapt or die... (Score:3, Interesting)
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!"
Re:Adapt or die... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
ACS most worried about journal articles (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Oh, it hurts. (Score:5, Funny)
Out of context!!! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
And vica vrsa? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you can turn this around: private business shouldn't spend its investor's money on something the government is already doing.
The ACS = tits on a boar (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you tell that I think they are a bunch of worthless pantloads? Just checking.
Police forces should be abolished (Score:3, Informative)
Think of the CHILDREN (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Weird logic (Score:4, Insightful)
When did government begin existing at the behest of profiteers?
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of whether governments should finance research is a separate issue.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:3, Informative)
I for one do not feel like paying for the same thing twice.
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Medieval thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:Not so fast, Uncle Sam (Score:3, Interesting)
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