I thought it might be fun to pause in our never-ending (albeit well-deserved) beatings of the music and movie industries' totally mystifying refusal to understand that the market is changing and that maybe they shouldn't do dumba$$ stuff like sue their customers and that maybe they need to think about changing their biz models.
This pause is only to ensure that addle-brained organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science get their due as well. These dopes publish the magazine SCIENCE and it has some great articles like:
Predicting Human Interactive Learning by Regret-Driven Neural Networks (Marchiori and Warglien, Science 22 February 2008: 1111-1113), The Demography of Educational Attainment and Economic Growth (Lutz et al., Science 22 February 2008: 1047-1048), Harvard Faculty Votes to Make Open Access Its Default (Lawler, Science 22 February 2008: 1025a), The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning (Karpicke and Roediger, Science 15 February 2008: 966-968)
Unfortunately my choice is to pay about $40(U.S.) for individual access to those articles or pay $100 (U.S.) for a membership which would include access. Then of course that's just for me. I couldn't share those articles with you...or rather I could, but it would be wrong.
Is there any sense of irony in charging for access to an article about how Harvard faculty are voting for open access?
Of course what really points to the absurdity of this is that over on the Social Science Research Network, I can get papers like Worlds for Study: Invitation - Virtual Worlds for Studying Real-World Business (and Law, and Politics, and Sociology, and....) by ROBERT J. BLOOMFIELD, Cornell University - Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management January 22, 2008...FOR FREE.
So tell me AAAS, why the charges? Let me offer an explanation...you (AAAS) have a biz model that supports a lot of salaries. You have fixed costs for office space and infrastructure. Your charging for access to articles supports that infrastructure. It doesn't support the people who did the research. It doesn't support the community that is denied access to this knowledge. So let's just be clear, your business model supports your own organization's advancement and survival...not science.