Connection Between Epigenome, Selective Mutability, Evolution, and Human Disease
Li, Harris et al., PLoS Genetics
Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine and elsewhere propose a "connection between the epigenome, selective mutability, evolution, and human disease" based on the findings of their study on associations of structural mutability with germline DNA methylation and with non-allelic homologous recombination mediated by low-copy repeats. "Combined evidence from four human sperm methylome maps, human genome evolution, structural polymorphisms in the human population, and previous genomic and disease studies consistently points to a strong association of germline hypomethylation and genomic instability," the Baylor-led team writes.
The Other Side
The Research Works Act, a bill currently being considered by the US Congress, has been roundly disparaged by the research community as an attempt by publishers to make more money by restricting the public's access to research. In the Guardian last week, University of Bristol researcher Mike Taylor said academic publishers have become "the enemies of science," and that the RWA "amounts to a declaration of war by the publishers" against the research community.
Some publishers are taking exception to these claims. Graham Taylor, director of academic, educational, and professional publishing at the UK Publishers Association, says in the Guardian this week that calling publishers the enemies of science is "offensive and wrong." Publishers aren't anti-science or anti-publication, but in reality have made research available to more readers for less money, Taylor says. "Public funds have not paid for the peer-reviewed articles that are based on research supported by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. They have only paid for the research itself and whatever reports the researchers are required to submit to the agency," he says. "The journal article based on the research has been the subject of significant extra investment that must somehow be recovered if scholarly communication as we know it is to survive."
Publishers of academic
Publishers of academic research have performed valuable services in the dissemination of scientific information, but to a large extent these have been profitable or at least sustainable enterprises. The steady growth in the number of new journals supports the contention that scientific publication can still be lucrative, especially if advertising opportunities exist. It is markedly cheaper and faster to disseminate scientific knowledge than before with improved technologies and the Internet.
Graham Taylor is incorrect in his assertion that public funds have not paid for the publishing of peer-review articles. Many journals have author pages charges, which are often even higher for open-access publications. Moreover, the actual peer-review is usually performed without charge to journals by scientists, which are themselves often paid salaries from public funding through governments and charities with the expectation that they will contribute in the peer-review process.
Good points by S. Pelech.
Good points by S. Pelech. Moreover the outrageous (only partly justifiable by the vertical nature of the market) cost of the journal subscriptions is largely paid by grant funding, as are the society dues that subsidize part some journal subscriptions.
In addition, the fee to
In addition, the fee to download a single article, which doesn't cost much of anything for the publisher, is more than buying the whole issue in print. And they want this to be the case in perpetuity. I blogged on this recently here: http://www.neoclone.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:...