Friday, March 06, 2009
Conyers, Eisen, the Huffington Post and Open Access
In case you are not aware, my brother (Michael Eisen) and Larry Lessig have been engaging in a public "debate" with John Conyers over Conyers' sponsorship of a bill to revoke the NIH policy on Open Access to publications. First the elder Eisen and Lessig wrote a posting:Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests? which they then followed up with John Conyers, It's Time to Speak Up. Now Conyers has written a reply: A Reply to Larry Lessig (which I note should have been titled A Reply to Eisen and Lessig, but that is for another day). Anyway it is worth reading them all and if I had not been sick for the last like 3-4 weeks I would write more but I have a million things to catch up on now that I have mostly gotten rid of nasty microbe #3.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most recent post
A ton to be thankful for -- here is one part of that - all the acknowledgement sections from my scholarly papers
So - it is another Thanksgiving Day and in addition to thinking about family, and football, and Alice's Restaurant, I also think a lot a...
-
I have a hardback version of The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerma n but had not gotten around to reading it alas. But now I am listening to th...
-
There is a spreading surge of PDF sharing going on in relation to a tribute to Aaron Swartz who died a few days ago. For more on Aaron ... -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way. Just got an email invitation to a meeting. The meeting is " THE FIRST ANNUAL WINTER Q-BIO ...
Conyers is hilarious. The guy just digs himself in the more he talks -- rather like Blagojevich.
ReplyDeleteTo hear Professor Lessig tell it, I introduced a bill that is utterly without merit and entirely the product of shady special interest dealing. Without any evidence to support his contention (other than my receipt of what can only be described as modest contributions from publishers), he labels my motivations for introducing this bill as "corrupt," accuses me of "shilling" for "Big Paper," and dismisses the whole thing as nothing more than a "money for influence scheme."
So, Conyers *admits* he introduced a bill favoring the publishers' interests after accepting money from them (the amount doesn't matter, if it wasn't that much it just means he's easily bought).
I've written a long dissection of his "logic":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=234
I am collecting responses to this as they come in.
ReplyDelete