Re: "Elsevier and weapons trade"

Re: "Elsevier and weapons trade"

[Dusko Pavlovic]

Hi.

I would like to make two points in response to Gabor Lukacz's post.

1)  The reasoning that arms dealers just cater to the market, and bear
no responsibility for wars or murders --- applies to drug dealers
equally well. Indeed, the same reasoning appears not only in the charter
of the National Rifle Association, but also in interviews of Pablo
Escobar, who would say something like:

> (If there were no [cocaine users], would there be any point in
> manufacturing [cocaine]? Let me
> ask it clearer: Would it bring *profit* to manufacture [cocaine] in
> that case??)


2) It is not obvious to me that a scientific venue, such as the
Categories mailing list, is a priori inappropriate to discuss
publishers' motives. Lancet is another scientific venue, and they found
it appropriate to oppose Elsevier's stance.

We probably cannot avoid the fact that the dissemination methods of a
science influence its contents, and the way people set up their research
goals. The presence of TAC, and maybe even of this very list, have
probably influenced category theory research. Elsevier has probably
influenced category theory research. Most of that influence was probably
positive. But the world is changing, Elsevier is changing and it might
make sense to exchange thoughts on how their changes may influence our
research. That does not seem to be out of scope of this list.

all the best,
-- dusko