on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland <j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
> scholarly publishing activities. These Foundations would then support
> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals. This would bring the
> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
> journal prices.
There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
university already has accumulated profits and gifts that
serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion,
by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep.
If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the
published output of science after 1940, its library would
hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
might possible have a few less $billion.
Best wishes,
Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>
