1. evolvingthoughts
  2. More on Elsevier

More on Elsevier

By evolvingthoughts on April 2, 2007.

Revere at Effect Measure has an update and discussion of the Elsevier arms trade issue that is worth reading for its measuredness (natch!).

Tags
General Science
Politics

More like this

Friday Blog Roundup
Given the lack of encouraging global warming developments coming out of the G8 summit, itâs nice to have good news on other topics: After a two-year boycott by doctors, authors, and healthcare and peace advocates, Lancet publisher Reed Elsevier has agreed to end its involvement in weapon sales â…
Elsevier Stops Hosting Arms Sales Fairs After Boycott
tags: Reed Elsevier, arms fairs Good news, everyone! It turns out that Reed Elsevier, the publisher and exhibitions group, has finally ended their involvement in the arms trade yesterday as the result of a two-year boycott by doctors, healthcare groups, authors and pacifist organizations. Elsevier…
Academia, capitalism, and conscience.
Regular commenter and tireless gadfly Bill Hooker asks what my take is on the movement afoot to get academics to put pressure on (and perhaps completely boycott) scientific/technical/medical publisher and information portal Reed-Elsevier. What's wrong with Reed-Elsevier? Among other things, they…
The Lancet's terrible dilemma
I like the British medical journal, The Lancet. I like it a lot. I read it, subscribed to it and I've published there. More than once. So I sympathize with their terrible dilemma: Physicians from around the world urged the publisher of The Lancet medical journal to cut its links to weapons sales,…

I actually meant to post this here but one of those 'senior moments' led to me posting it on Effect Measure:

For some years, I worked in and then ran a small library for the medical division of a publishing house in the UK so I am aware of the exorbitant cost of some scientific and medical journals and I agree that they are driven solely by the profit motives of the companies concerned. Are you saying that capitalism is immoral?

I also made a number of points in the previous thread about Elsevier which have not yet been answered. Critics of the arms trade appear to accept it as axiomatic that weapons are irredeemably evil on the grounds that they cause death and injury - both intentionally and unintentionally - to non-combatants. I can well understand why people feel that way but is it rational?

As I mentioned before, following the Dunblane massacre the UK, not suprisingly, tightened the law regulating the private ownership of firearms. Yet privately-owned motor vehicles killed and injured far more people per year than guns ever did without provoking the same level of public outrage or driving stricter legislation.

At the very least, such an attitude is inconsistent (hobgoblins notwithstanding) but, to put it simply, I am pretty sure most critics of the arms trade would use a gun without a second thought if it was necessary to defend themsleves or those they loved. I certainly would. Wouldn't Richard Horton? Wouldn't you?

By Ian H Spedding FCD (not verified) on 02 Apr 2007 #permalink