Now on ScienceBlogs: Charles Darwin February 12, 1809 - April 19, 1882

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

Profile

Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is Associate Professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections among science, media, and society. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com

Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences

Comment Policy

Upcoming Talks

Spotlight on Research & Commentary

Sci-Comm Journals

Science News Agenda-Setters

UK, Canada, & Australia

News Wires

Social Media to Watch

Podcasts on Science, Society, and Communication

Research Centers: Science & Society

Research Centers: Media, Politics, Society

Media & Culture

« Is Bush Setting the Stage for a Climate Change Bill? | Main | Let the Conversation Begin? The You-Tube Election »

Things Get Worse for Those "Greedy" Academic Publishers

Posted on: January 27, 2007 2:17 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet

Things just went from bad to terrible for the image of the Association of American Publishers. Rick Weiss in today's WPost spotlights the Association's hiring of "PR Pit Bull" Eric Dezenhall to help in their fight against patient advocates and members of Congress who are trying to require free access at academic journals to the results of federally financed research. Two bills and appropriations language mandating public access to government-funded research are slated to be introduced in the new Congress.

Dezenhall, who's clients include Exxon Mobil, apparently advised the Association to use some of the following language in framing their defense and the efforts of patient advocates:

Public access equals government censorship.
Government [is] seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher.

Here's the clincher, as Weiss, one of the best in business, writes at the Post:

Kevin McCauley, editor of the trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Report and the man who coined Dezenhall's "pit bull" appellation in a 2006 interview with Business Week, said the publishing association may live to regret the image of desperation that comes with an association with Dezenhall.

"The question I want to ask the publishing association is why a group that publishes scholarly journals feels the need to go this route," McCauley said.

His question might best be answered by the one-page statement the association released yesterday, which Schroeder confirmed was written internally and not by Dezenhall.

"Private sector non-profit and commercial publishers serve researchers and scientists by managing and funding the peer review process, disseminating authors' work, investing in technology and preserving millions of peer-reviewed articles as part of the permanent record of science," the statement read, in part.

Convinced?

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/31684

Comments

1

Isn't ExxonMobil, or perhaps it's many chemist employees, strongly affiliated with the American Chemical Society?

If so, it wouldn't surprise me that the ACS would use the same hitmen and tactics that "bad guy" chemical companies like ExxonMobil use in their PR and policy influencing campaigns.

Posted by: anon | January 28, 2007 3:20 PM

2

It wouldn't be too surprising that American Chemical Society was hooked up with Exxon Mobil. A journalist with ACS was fired for reporting on documentst that proved members of the Bush Administration were not allowing federal scientists to links between hurricanes and global warming.
http://www.thirteen.org/air/111/latest.html

There's an online version of the documentary that you find by clicking on the episode "Science Fiction" http://www.thirteen.org/air/watch.html

Posted by: anon | January 29, 2007 6:14 PM

3

WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT TORNADO'S

Posted by: frankie | March 28, 2008 12:50 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.