On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, David Prosser wrote [in part]: > I'm not at all convinced by the 'spending money on > dissemination impedes the discovery of a cure for cancer' > argument. Spending money on making sure that data are > easily available has accelerated the pace of scientific > discovery (most famously in genome research) and there is > no reason to think that this will not be the same for > papers.
I agree that funds spent on effective "knowledge transfer" are well-spent. There have been many debates in the cancer research field (and in other areas of health research) about how best to foster "translational research" (e.g. the transfer of basic knowledge into policy and practice). Surely attempts to foster the dissemination of primary research results provide one very credible way to facilitate "knowledge transfer" in general, and health-related "translational research" in particular? I'd use a similar argument to counter concerns about the "free rider" question about OA, whereby "big business gains free access to research for their commercial advantage". See: MPs brand scientific publishing "unsatisfactory", by Bobby Pickering, Information World Review, 20 July 2004, http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1156758 Jim Till University of Toronto
