LETTERS
Electronic access to journals
T
HE ONLY PARTIAL SUCCESS OF THE
Public Library of Science (PLOS) initiative in the life sciences described in "Authors' Message: Clear But Not Loud?" has lessons for chemistry and the American Chemical Society (C&EN, Sept. 3, page 44). Scientists want free access to old literature but do not want to simply hand it over to a government body The ACS Publications Division is less than a year away from having a digital archive of its entire journal collection— back to 1879. It will be great to have these backfiles available at the click of a mouse, but who should pay? I believe they should be free. Here is why It has always been free. From the beginning of time, the library ethic has been to make knowledge freely available to anyone who walked in the door. The electronic equivalent of this is file sharing, but libraries are prevented from doing this by publisher licensing agreements. As brick-and-mortar research libraries become obsolete, some publishers see new profits from putting entire collections behind pay-for-view electronic portals. Knowledge is in danger of becoming less accessible. The creation of a digital backfile is not very cosdy It is a one-time hit of $1 million on an annual Publications Division budget of greater than $96 million. Continuing maintenance costs can be built into current journal pricing. Free access could be provided some time after initial publication (for example, after six months) to allow ACS to maintain financial viability, journal quality, and member services. Free access to old journals may prove to be a good business model for attracting new paying customers to other products, as well as new members to the society The American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology (ASBMB) has made theJournal of Biological Chemistry free in backfile and ASAP form. (But there are author page charges.) By free, I mean absolutely free, at least the PDF files, plus text search and link capability Publishers are being tempted to tie backfile access to institutional subscriptions in order to consolidate revenue streams from library budgets. This practice should be considered exploitive. Nonaffiliated individuals and small institutions will suffer disproportionately. No commercial publisher has offered free access to backfiles. The learned societies have an opportu6
C&EN
/
OCTOBER
29.
2001
nity to make a bold competitive move and do something about the journals crisis (C&EN, Jan. 29, page 37). Indeed, their public mission demands it. As they become the world's libraries, they must adopt library ethics rather than publishing house ethics. Once they are the world's libraries, membership loyalty will be cemented in perpetuity. The Royal Society of Chemistry has announced its intention to make backfiles free. ACS members deserve it: They write the papers, do the refereeing, sign away copyright, and are putting manuscripts into electronic-ready format—all pro bono. They want the world to have wide access to their work. They want to post reprints on their websites without fear of a copyright infringement lawsuit. Taxpayers paid for most of the research; they have a right to expect ready access. Third-world scientists will be forever grateful; theyTl be able to stay current to within a year. Institutions can use library stack space for other purposes. Finally, if publishers do this, they'll preserve the integrity and copyright ofpublished research. Ifthey don't, beware! Consumer resistance in the form of Napster-like file sharing and open Web publishing loom. ACS governance is intensely studying this issue, and a decision is expected before the end of this year. I hope they see it this way CHRIS REED
University of California, Riverside
Terrorism at plants
W
HAT STRUCK ME IN THE ARTICLE
"Terrorism at the Plant Level" (C&EN, Sept. 24, page 12) were comments on how companies are not revealing information on worst-case scenario plans, and on how the Department of Justice report is more than a year late in revealing the possible threats to the chemical industry For the first point, detailed chemical plant information (relating to spills or releases) should not be made available to the public by the Internet or by any means, but it should be openly available to the people who may have to perform firefighting or rescue operations. Making it available to the public makes such reconnaissance information easier for terrorists to obtain, and secondly, will encourage more of the public to adopt a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard!) stance on the chemical industry For the second issue, as chemists, industrial or not, we should be clamoring for the information in the Justice report now, not whenever they get around to finishing the
report. Ifwe are to improve security at our facilities, we will need guidance from experts on how to proceed and how to set up safeguards against terrorist attacks on plants and labs that produce chemicals. I was very pleased to read ACS President Attila E. Pavlath's letter in the same issue, and I think his call for us to provide our chemical expertise to those who need it is an excellent idea. I think we can go further by each of us making sure that we insist our management, department heads, or plant directors improve chemical plant security immediately, not later. For those of us who work in academic laboratory settings, I would say improving security in your labs should be a top priority I agree that the freedom of movement in academia as it currently exists is part of its appeal, but how would you feel if toxic chemicals were stolenfroma university lab and then used to make sarin gas that injures hundreds? Each ofus can provide local input in our workplaces to improve chemical security by taking steps, or at least informing management that we want improved security I maybe preaching to the choir, but I have often found that chemists and scientists do not go far enough to speak out when needed. There are so many of us, and ifwe all take the time to make our views known, we will most likely be listened to. What better way to show that our democracy is alive and well than to speak out and use our freedom of speech to demand change for the better? ALEXANDER B. MORGAN
Midland, Mich.
Look to solar energy
A
PROPOS OF THE ARTICLE "UP FROM
theDead"(C&EN,Sept.3,page29) on the potentially brighter prospects for nuclear power: At the recent ACS meeting, I attended "Energy in the 21st Century," a symposium sponsored by the Division of Chemical Education. At that sessionjohn A. Turner, aprincipal scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, stated that a total area of approximately 10,000 square miles receiving insolation available in the desert Southwest would be able to provide sufficient electrical power to meet all of our nation's current needs [Science, 285,687 (1999)}. This is not a pipe dream. Large-scale solar electrical generation is a realistic possibility that could become a reality within a very few decades if our nation had the collective sense to pursue this objective aggressively While no technology is free of HTTP: //PUBS. ACS.ORG/CEN
eastman.com Ask the Wizard. With our new Technical Solution Wizards, you can get technical answers in minutes. Trying to find the melt viscosity of polymers? The condensation calculations for resins? The new wizards give you answers in an instant. Just input your specs, click your mouse and get an answer. Not the answer you were looking for? Change your criteria and try it again. And with 24/7 access, you can take advantage of Eastman's chemical and plastic expertise as much as you want, anytime you need it. Put the Wizard to work for you.
EASTMAM.COM EASTMAN Eastman Chemical Company
www.eastman.com ©2001 Eastman Chemical Company.
LETTERS risk, it is difficult to foresee problems associated with solar electrical energy generation that could begin to compare with air pollution from coal-burning power plants or the difficulties associated with radioactive waste from nuclear plants. It seems to me to be a no-brainer for those with neither vested interests nor axes to grind.
form. In his press release, he states: "This GAO study reveals that polluting industries are in the position to influence panel findings. Behind-the-scenes polluting industries are constantly working to weaken public health and environmental standards." It seems likely that Rep. Waxman had formed his point of view well before the release of the GAO study BOYD EARL Second, the idea advanced by some enviLas Vegas ronmentalists that toxicologists should be disqualified for performing studies for, consulting for, or being employed by compaNot for boys only nies that produce the chemical products in HE ARTICLE "HOWTO FILL THE PIPEquestion seems odd. Who do they think line with Women" contained excerpts would foot the bill for toxicology testing from a report by the National Coun- other than companies that produce the cil for Research on Women reporting that products? Would they rather have panelists "girls' interest in science can also be sparked who are unfamiliar with the studies? by... combining computers and technology JIM KURTZ with other disciplines such as history or Idaho Falls, Idaho language" (C&EN, Oct. 1, page 102). This perpetuates the myth that girls cannot, or will not, be interested in science Advantages and technology without "softening" the of P.E. licensure hard disciplines. It perpetuates the myth that history, language, social sciences, and HEMICAL ENGINEERS WILL ENHANCE the arts arefieldsfor women and that scithe image of their profession and ence and technology are fields for men. earn greater respect from the public The myth continues: Ifwe are to integrate and their peers by becoming licensed Progirls into science and technology, we will fessional Engineers (P.E.s). Professional need to combine some of the "female" licensure may enhance the prospects of salary increases and promotions, and offer fields with the technical "male" fields. It is this myth as well as the attitude opportunities to hold positions not open that science and technology as their own to those without a license. Only a licensed disciplines arefieldsin which only boys professional can offer services directly to and men are interested that is exactly part the public. While many entry-level chemof the reason why girls are not staying in ical engineering positions today do not require professional licensure, no one science. knows what will happen in the future. AMY C. ANDERSON Some chemical engineers who are not RE.s Dartmouth College may one dayfindthemselves working for Hanover, N.H. engineers who are. The first step toward professional Science licensure is for candidates to take the national Fundamentals of Engineering advisory panels (FE) exam, which is offered annually in April on college campuses and in OctoHANKS FOR YOUR COVERAGE OF EPA'S science advisory panels. It is a provoca- ber. The afternoon portion of the FE tive news issue (C&EN, July 30, page exam can be taken in chemical engineer38). I would urge other readers who find ing. Candidates are best prepared to take this issue compelling to take the time to this exam in their senior year of college, download and read the text of the GAO when engineering fundamentals are still report (GAO-01-536, "EPAs Science Advi- fresh in their minds and they are accussory Board Panel"), which can be accessed tomed to taking tests. on the Web at http://wwwGAO.gov After four years of professional experiI would like to add a couple of points ence, engineers who have passed the FE to C&EN's coverage of the issue. Accord- exam can take the Principles & Practice of ing to the cover letter that accompanied Engineering exam. Those who pass earn the GAO study, the study was requested by the designation P.E. Rep. Henry A. Waxman's (D-CaM) office. When chemical engineers become RE.s, Waxman is the ranking minority member the engineering colleges from which they on the Committee on Government Re- graduated benefit in terms of their reputa-
T
C
T
8
C&EN
/
OCTOBER
29,
2001
tion and their ability to renew the accreditation of their chemical engineering program. The Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology (ABET) uses the proportion ofengineering seniors who pass the FE exam as a quantitative assessment of the quality of an engineering program. THEODORE J. SHESKIN
Cleveland State University, Ohio CORRECTION Oct. 15, page 8: Because of an editing error, the size of Lonza's Czech Republic investment in microbial fermentation was misstated ; it is $50 million.
HOW TO REACH US CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR • Our e-mail address is
[email protected]. • Our fax number is (202) 872-8727. • Or you can send your letter to: C&EN Editor-in-Chief 1155—16th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 • Letters should generally be 400 words or fewer and should include the writer's full name, address, and home telephone; letters may be edited for purposes of clarity and space. SUBSCRIPTIONS • Send all new and renewal subscriptions and requests for subscription rates to ACS, Dept. L-0011, Columbus, OH 43268-0011. • Changes of address, claims for missing issues, subscription orders, status of records, and accounts should be directed to Manager, Member & Subscriber Services, ACS, P.O. Box 3337, Columbus, OH 43210; telephone (800) 333-9511 or (614) 447-3776; or send an e-mail to
[email protected]. REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS • Information on obtaining permission for copying articles is available at the C&EN website, http://pubs.acs.org/cen. • For quotes and information on ordering bulk reprints, call CJS Reprint Services at (888) 257-2134 or (410) 819-9765. ADVERTISING • For advertising rates and our editorial calendar, contact Centcom Ltd., 676 East Swedesford Rd., Suite 202, Wayne, PA, 19807-1612; telephone (610) 9648061; or fax (610)964-8071. ACS INFORMATION • For more information about American Chemical Society activities and departments, call (800) 227-5558. When prompted, ask for operator assistance, or visit the ACS website, http://www.chemistry.org.
HTTP://PUBS.ACS.ORG/CEN
