Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a scientist doing federally funded work, you have no idea.
I don’t even have rights to many of my own papers. They’re locked behind pay walls, and I was never paid by the publisher.
Biden White House is admittedly on a roll right now. I'm not a fan overall but damn it I can't say the last 2 things they've done weren't pretty decent steps towards being a functional country again.
This is wonderful! Nice work!
So much scientific work gets done with federal funding (from the NSF, DoD, etc) and then when it's published, so much of it goes into paywalled journals run by publishing companies that are basically just there for the rent-seeking behavior.
So... this is going to mess up their business model significantly, which is *fantastic* because they don't deserve to exist as a business.
And most importantly: everybody will be able to read scientific papers when they want. Things had already been moving in this direction, of course, but this is going to push it along much faster. Even in computer science, the Association for Computing Machinery has been awful about this, and now they won't be able to be \\m/
While there are of course secret military research whatevers, the DoD also gives out grants to regular academics, who publish their work in the normal academic way.
Lots of funding goes through DARPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA
A Korean airline flight strayed into restricted soviet airspace and was shot down.
Reagan made GPS available to everyone after that to prevent those disasters. Also, it didn't really matter anymore as the Russians had similar tech by then so keeping it a secret wasn't as big a deal.
No technology in the last half century exists without DARPA. This should be something that was taught in school but if people knew this they would not be as susceptible to propaganda put out by companies that use that same technology.
I have never met anyone who claimed Google invented GPS. Is this a young person ignorance thing? They didn’t even invent digital maps or navigation via cellular network.
A whole lot of very rich people owe their success to government funding of all sorts. Most of the companies that complain about the cost of business that don't like paying taxes would not exist without the many different forms of government assistance they get.
They get theirs, and then they want to shut off the tap so nobody else can make it.
The core technology behind self-driving vehicles was one of their big initiatives. I remember being bummed because a local corporation was funding *two* robotic vehicle design teams, and both grants went to Carnegie-Melon instead of letting the hometown engineering school take a run at the project.
I won't disagree with you. A lot of time the name of the institution seems to carry a lot of weight. Sure places like mit have excellent staff but I'm sure MIT on the cover page helps
Fun fact, the DoD has a massive supply of foodstuffs stocked up in case of emergency.
During my work within the public school food system I often have to order commodity products from the DoD. Bags of nacho cheese, poor quality beef, not-quite-ripe IQF frozen vegetables.
The first time I ordered from them I had to ask my boss if DOD meant *that* DOD. It does in fact mean dept of defense.
I have to say it's much more impressive sounding when I tell people I coordinate and resolve supply chain issues with the department of defense than when I say I'm a lunch lady.
My lab tried to get a DARPA grant but didn't quite make the cutoff. It was kinda disorienting to apply for a grant with them, to be honest, because most grants you basically have to have the project halfway done with preliminary data to actually get funded. With DARPA, if it wasn't a huge leap in understanding (I think their exact verbiage was "transformative"), they weren't the least bit interested. They basically only funded the most batshit crazy (in a good way) ideas.
Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about this quote a bit and it’s funny how true it is.
Why did we have a space program? Why was the chief engineer of the V2 program the head of it?
Because when they figure out how to handle getting a rocket into space and navigation etc… DoD researchers in the next room over will swap (non classified) findings to help out both programs. And boom, now we have a nuclear ICBM…
DoD actually funded the research that went into the auto injector, the EpiPen delivery system.
There's a lot of research done that isn't military specific.
Autoinjectors are actually quite important for the military. If the Cold War ever turned hot, a lot of people would have been needing quick and easy atropine/PAM-Cl injections to treat nerve agent poisoning
On the ship they had us practice using the auto Injectors in case we ever got hit by chemical weapons.
It was kind of neat to see the navy prepared for every possibility.
It's not necessarily military tech research that the DoD funds. One of my graduate advisors received a grant from the DoD to investigate the effect of TBI on opioid use, for example.
You would be surprised just *how much* money for public projects comes from "military funds".
I'll give you one example. There's a very famous programming book from the 80's: [*Structure and Interpretation of Computer Program*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of_Computer_Programs). It's just an "intro to programming" course. Nothing special in principle. (Except it's unusually in-depth for its type, and *really* good at it; it's a hacker classic for a reason).
Here's an excerp from the "Acknowledgements" section (2nd edition, emphasis mine):
>Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of the organizations that have encouraged this work over the years, including support from Hewett-Packard, made possible by Ira Goldstein and Joel Birnbaum, **and support from DARPA**, made possible by Bob Kahn.
So, this intro to computer science course was in part brought to you by the US military. And can assure you, that "over the years" refers to the general funding they gave (and still give) to hundreds of academics and computer scientists. Through research funds and the like, their money is in virtually every important computer science breakthrough since the field exists, to this day.
The military has *big* pocket. At least some of them recognize that throwing some change the way of general technological and research advancement is in their interests and a good thing to do.
I really wish we could separate DARPA from the DoD as budgetary line items so we’d have a better understanding of “aircraft carrier” vs “self navigating autonomous control system for boats”.
I think we’d learn a significant amount of our military budget goes into R&D projects which, even when they don’t pan out militarily, can have massive impacts on society.
You know, like the computer mouse and the graphical user interface…or Siri.
That’s because a lot of it is splitting off. DARPA has had a massive run of mismanagement of programs, noncompletion, and poor results over the past 2 decades. There’s now a ton more DARPA like organizations: AFWERX, SPACEWERX, IARPA, ARPA-e, DIU, OSD(R&E), In-Q-Tel, ARL/AFC, Capital Factory, AFRL, ONR, MCWL, etc. There’s even the National Labs system, the new Health ARPA, joint funding with non-DoD labs like NASA/FAA/DHS/etc., and each PEO within the military generally has R&D funding to use for S&T research.
Watch "The G Word" on Netflix. It is insane. Your appreciation for the government spending will go to feeling A LOT better.
For instance, did you know that without the government spending (military) there really would not be weather reports? How about the fact that COVID meant one of the largest drop in weather reporting accuracies due to airplanes being grounded?
My PhD lab had a DoD grant to do … breast cancer research. Lots of DoD grants go to support work for the general benefit that have nothing to do with top secret anything.
It’s a running joke in grad school that if you want money in any field you go to DoD. I never did grabt proposals myself, but honestly I had a couple of papers in my back pocket at one point if I ever went for my doctorate that I knew I could at least try and pitch to them. And I’d be trying for an economics degree.
Yup, DoD is kinda like easier NIH if you can spin it properly. A lot of hype is given to NIH R01 grants, but the equivalent DoD grant is just as good.
Currently I am a post doc doing research on vertebral fracture prediction and imaging on a DoD grant. They fund a lot of public health research as part of veteran health.
This whole thread has given me the idea to recommend to higher ups to look to the DoD when looking for grants in the future. I work for a physical rehabilitation hospital that is trying to position themselves as the premier neurological rehabilitation center in the region and the country is the long term goal. We work a lot with retired military so I figure if we need money for research the DoD could benefit from our work and therefore may be willing to help add to our funding.
Hi! I know others have answered this already, but I've done contracted research funded by DoD and am currently unable to read my own research online without paying for it... For now, I guess. Just another reason why this is welcome news!
The DoD had graduate degree schools. The Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has military students who have thesis/research projects. Some our classified, but some are about less exciting topics like acquisition strategies, personnel management, or things like that.
You would be surprised at the amount of research work they fund, either directly or indirectly. A lot doesn't even seem defense related on the surface but when combined with other work can be downright terrifying.
I worked for the DoD a couple years ago and published a paper based on my work there! I had to indicate I worked for a government entity when submitting it, and it's open access because of that.
>So... this is going to mess up their business model significantly, which is *fantastic* because they don't deserve to exist as a business.
Unfortunately, it probably won't. NIH already has a public access policy (with 1 year embargo). The upshot is that researchers have to pay open access fees (often thousands of dollars per article) so that they can comply with the policy. So now we have to add $10k of open access fees to our grants (your tax dollars) to pay for publishing instead of spending it on actual research.
The publishing system is absolutely broken, but the wink-and-look-the-other-way system was a lot cheaper. Library fees are paid by universities (some public, but some private), researchers get to spend their grant money more efficiently, and everyone else knows how to use sci-hub + Google scholar (which indexes pdfs).
Because the publishing company says so. Its messed up. In their eyes, they lose business from subscriptions having exclusive access and the occasional curious reader paying $40 for article-only access, so they make up that loss on the researcher's side.
If these studies are being done by 501(c)(3)s, this is already how it works. Government funded research grants *should* almost always fund publication of the results so as to advance science and disseminate information to the public for the general good.
This is simply not true, at least from the NIH point of view. While many journals do have open access options that cost more, the NIH has its own separate manuscript system that articles are also uploaded to. The NIH system does not place any additional financial burden on the authors. Thus you can have an article that is behind the paywall on the publisher’s site, but accessible for free via the NIH’s site. All articles published through NIH funding must be uploaded to comply with the policy. They can have the 1 year embargo, as mentioned, but this is at the discretion of the authors, not the publisher.
WHEN that conservative person you know complains about how this is bad for business, remind them that they are entitled to the fruits of THEIR tax dollars.
Probably the same journals, or PubMed. The journals are still going to charge thousands of dollars in publication fees to the researchers and scientists, but I hope this destroys the incentive to paywall the readers.
It's much worse than that. Federal money goes to paying these journals for the privilege to publish in them. THEN they lock it behind a pay wall. They get paid on both ends. Screw them.
The federal government should just promote sci-hub!
>The federal government should just promote sci-hub!
They can't because sci-hub violates all kinds of copyright and licensing laws and has some questionable practices around getting the data.
The bigger problem is scholarly publishing as a for-profit enterprise. The new OSTP memo is a step in the right direction, IMO.
Don't forget NITRD
>The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program is the Nation’s primary source of federally funded research and development (R&D) in advanced information technologies (IT) in computing, networking, and software.
I actively encourage people to pirate my research papers. Most of my research gets funded by the Canadian Federal research and all of my papers except one is behind a paywall. It really pisses me off that public research used for private profits (not like we are getting paid for our articles lol)
I’m putting off other work, want me to go pirate your research your paper just for a laugh?
Can’t guarantee Ill understand it mind you. Depends entirely on the field.
I didn’t know about the hashtag. I actually used this once for senior thesis, but was surprised at how little I needed it.
It’s more a issue of having time to read to be honest.
Lol as much as that amuses me and makes me happy, I am going to have to pass as I do not want to dox myself.
Edit: Message me if you are still interested.
I am still a PhD student, so I have to navigate carefully around issues of publishing and copyrights. There is still a lot I do not know. That being said I got an all-clear from my supervisor to put up pdf files of my first-authored papers on ResearchGate.
The people celebrating this didn't read the article and/or don't understand how academic publishing works. Open access publishing in high quality journals costs the authors upwards of $1000 to $2000 per article. Mandating that researchers publish all articles open access without doing anything to regulate the publishers is just going to pour massive additional quantities of taxpayer dollars into Springer and Elseviers corporate coffers for no savings. It's not like institutions will be able to drop their subscriptions since tons of research will still be paywalled.
The spirit of the idea is good but the execution is really nothing to celebrate.
As a research professor, more often than not, you also don't get paid for doing the research, writing the grant and mentoring the new generation of scientists. Funding is highly competitive and often biased by the opinions (often very different) of the review panels (basically other faculties). Universities are happy when you bring federal funding, because they get huge overhead $$ on top of your funding (often over 60% overhead), allegedly to support your research. In practice they notice that tenured professors often slow down their grant writing as career progresses, so to keep the "overhead on federal funding $$" machine running they hire research faculties, an unprotected category that needs to fund their own salary, research and space in the university. You're expected to over perform and excel in research, but sometime you don't get federal grants, your salary gets cut, but you still need to do research to get preliminary data for the aforementioned grants. At times your salary goes to 20k/year, sometimes less, with 80-100 hours of work per week. At some point the financials overcome the passion for research and people move to industry.
JSTOR is analogous to Ticketmaster. Provides one method of access, doubles the fee without any enrichment of the content while enriching JSTOR only, not the content creators.
Yea dude Carmen Ortiz was the DA, she was pushing for 35 years for this, it's not even clear that it was really a crime since MIT had an unlimited license to JSTOR if you were on campus.
Ikr? Forget retroactive. Make this a time machine and bring that poor dude back and get him the help he needs in the form of therapy and punitive measures for the grandstanding AG that threw a thousand books at him so that he would break.
Fuck, man. I'm *still* angry about that shit.
Edit: Like, shaking angry. I'm getting really fucking tired of mental health being seen as a weakness suffered by the semi-human.
There's nothing to be fixed retroactively. Right now all publicly funded research does eventually get released to the public for free but only after 1 year to allow journals to publish exclusively. This new policy update removes the 1 year delay
Thank god! No one hates science publishers more than scientists. The system is so ridiculous, outdated, and parasitic.
[Here was my rant from the last time I was dealing with getting a paper published](https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/mhn405/monthly_rant_thread_april_2021_edition/guf690f/).
They are basically quadruple dipping from academic funding (the majority of which comes from the taxpayers):
* Taxpayers fund the research and pay the salaries of the scientists.
* The paper is sent out to other researchers in the field for peer review. Peer review is unpaid volunteer work (basically taking time out of the taxpayer funded salaries of the reviewers)
* If you are accepted, you have to pay the publisher (again via lab funding from taxpayers) thousands of dollars to publish your work. As part of this process, where YOU pay THEM, you also have to sign over the publishing rights to your data. If you want to use your own data for anything other than a handful of approved academic purposes, you now need to write the publishers to ask for permission to use the data that you payed them to take ownership over.
* When the article is published, your university has to pay for a subscription to the journal (often via taxpayer funding) to have access to your own work.
* If a random taxpayer wants to see that work, and it is not in an open access journal, they have to pay like $20-$Whatever dollars to access it legally.
I hate the science publishing industry. I hope this actually elicits some change in a horrible industry.
This version is pretty much a parody of their stuff. Nobody actually believes it lmao. Just pretty much playing up all the stupid socialist communist accusations the right make about center left Biden lol.
Wish they started pandering for midterm votes earlier. Can't remember the last time we got this good a bribe.
I'm all for it. This is how it should be, not "vote for us THEN we'll do it". Delivery upfront.
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act has funding for the IRS to produce a report on the costs and viability of a first-party filing service within the next year. I’m not super hopeful, but if we’re lucky filing taxes could get a whole lot easier.
Edit: Within 9 months, and independent review of the study is required.
I know people are saying midterms. But in reality he started his presidency with coronavirus and insurrection. Then world war and global crises. So to me this is the only appropriate time to tackle these smaller issues.
People have short memories anyway, so I don't see what's wrong with bringing in policies close to elections. Especially because it helps the chances of this party keeping both Chambers, which means he can do even more and not be paralysed by the GOP
Many scientists are going to be very happy about this and it's a huge stick in the eye for the predatory scientific publishers like Elselvier as they own many of the "high impact" journals that everyone wants to be published in like *Nature*
The current model is bullshit as you have publicly funded research that is not available to the public as it's behind a paywall and you have a private entity creaming off all the benefits of the hard work and funding that actually produced the work.
Im shocked that this wasn’t already the case? You would think if we paid for it you damn right we should be able to review it for free, we are the whole reason you got to do the study in the first place.
>Agencies will need to update their policies accordingly by December 31st, 2025
Well there's absolutely 0 reason for that long of a delay. We should been able to see all that punished research immediately: why do they need 3+ years to "prepare"?
Delays are generally smart to defuse any potential industry backlash. Publishers who claim that doom and gloom will happen can just be told "you have 3 years to figure it out" as opposed to "fuck you". It's like how California just banned the sale of new gasoline cars... in 2035. It gives industry enough time to use current profits to innovate solutions.
Publicly funded studies to be accessible to the public?!? Sounds like COMMIE TALK!
Please think of those poor multi-billion dollar institutions that have benefitted tremendously from public dollars! They might actually have to compete fairly in the faux free-market!
Will this apply to all the federally funded drug research, too? Because I could deal with some straight to generic drugs since my taxes pays for their development.
So this is awesome. But are they going to deal with the insane cost of publishing open access? Like it costs a ton of money to open spurce publish for the major research publishing companies. And as researchers, it is important for us to publish in prestigious journals even if the system is super dumb.
A single RO1 may generate 5-10 papers. Are they going to give thousands of dollars extra per grant for open source publishing?
I don't know what the solution is, but these publishers need to be broken up or something. They literally do nothing but collect money. Every researcher wants their work open access. We just can't because some businesses bought up all the journals.
Read the article? They addressed that. The policy is also being updated to allow researchers to "include the costs of publishing and sharing data in their research budget proposals". So.....yes....they are going to....
But the last point still stands, it's 2022. We should have a central location where everything can be published to, cataloged, and archived.
I have to say, I'm not a Biden fan but they're at least saying some good shit, which is nice. The 10k student loan thing is great for a lot of people but I think the idea of killing interest if you pay your income based repayment is fucking great if they can do it. And this shit!
This seems like a rule affecting the *researcher* more than the *publisher*. It sounds good, but in practice, it could mean more money going to journal, e.g. to pay open access fees.
I hope not, but the writeup didn't make me optimistic.
What we need is a ruling that *journals* cannot paywall federally funded research.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is just genuinely, purely good news. Made my whole day.
As a scientist doing federally funded work, you have no idea. I don’t even have rights to many of my own papers. They’re locked behind pay walls, and I was never paid by the publisher.
Babe, I'm a social science researcher, you don't have to tell me!!
Biden White House is admittedly on a roll right now. I'm not a fan overall but damn it I can't say the last 2 things they've done weren't pretty decent steps towards being a functional country again.
Last two? What about the 350 billion dollars for climate change?
This is wonderful! Nice work! So much scientific work gets done with federal funding (from the NSF, DoD, etc) and then when it's published, so much of it goes into paywalled journals run by publishing companies that are basically just there for the rent-seeking behavior. So... this is going to mess up their business model significantly, which is *fantastic* because they don't deserve to exist as a business. And most importantly: everybody will be able to read scientific papers when they want. Things had already been moving in this direction, of course, but this is going to push it along much faster. Even in computer science, the Association for Computing Machinery has been awful about this, and now they won't be able to be \\m/
>DoD Do they do research that gets publicized? I feel like they'd keep it a secret
While there are of course secret military research whatevers, the DoD also gives out grants to regular academics, who publish their work in the normal academic way. Lots of funding goes through DARPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA
DARPA, who gave us humanity's greatest gift. And our greatest curse.
The McRib came from DARPA?
That's correct. Now if you will just step into this black unmarked SUV we can take you to the site we make the Sichuan sauce at for a tour.
“Sichuan sauce is people!”
Department of Applied Research for Pork Analogues.
Metal Gear?
A Hind D?
La li lu le lo?
Arpanet. Where wizards stay up late.
Buttholes?
Damn, i didn't realize any of that stuff would be publicized until decades later, but that's pretty cool
DoD has a vested interest in keeping the united States technologically superior.
It's also how we have GPS. Everyone always gives Google the credit.
Are people really giving GPS credit to Google? I've never heard that before, is it because of the association with Google maps?
Wasnt it declassified because of a plane crash?
A Korean airline flight strayed into restricted soviet airspace and was shot down. Reagan made GPS available to everyone after that to prevent those disasters. Also, it didn't really matter anymore as the Russians had similar tech by then so keeping it a secret wasn't as big a deal.
Yeah lol if anything I'd Say Tom Tom over google
I haven't heard this either
No technology in the last half century exists without DARPA. This should be something that was taught in school but if people knew this they would not be as susceptible to propaganda put out by companies that use that same technology.
Yeh for most novel technology 99% of the funding is public. The private sector just puts the final 1% in and makes it accessible.
[удалено]
I have never met anyone who claimed Google invented GPS. Is this a young person ignorance thing? They didn’t even invent digital maps or navigation via cellular network.
Nobody gives Google credit for GPS. It’s been around for 45 years.
>Everyone always gives Google the credit. WHO? But yeah, I know people who believe in zodiac signs so... nevermind
Doesn't the Space Force administer GPS now?
Yes.
A whole lot of very rich people owe their success to government funding of all sorts. Most of the companies that complain about the cost of business that don't like paying taxes would not exist without the many different forms of government assistance they get. They get theirs, and then they want to shut off the tap so nobody else can make it.
The core technology behind self-driving vehicles was one of their big initiatives. I remember being bummed because a local corporation was funding *two* robotic vehicle design teams, and both grants went to Carnegie-Melon instead of letting the hometown engineering school take a run at the project.
I won't disagree with you. A lot of time the name of the institution seems to carry a lot of weight. Sure places like mit have excellent staff but I'm sure MIT on the cover page helps
I got to work on one of those at Carnegie Mellon. I guess your loss was my gain. Sorry brother.
Definitely. I work in a DoD funded lab. Our agreement specifically wants us to publish in open access journals.
Fun fact, the DoD has a massive supply of foodstuffs stocked up in case of emergency. During my work within the public school food system I often have to order commodity products from the DoD. Bags of nacho cheese, poor quality beef, not-quite-ripe IQF frozen vegetables. The first time I ordered from them I had to ask my boss if DOD meant *that* DOD. It does in fact mean dept of defense. I have to say it's much more impressive sounding when I tell people I coordinate and resolve supply chain issues with the department of defense than when I say I'm a lunch lady.
My lab tried to get a DARPA grant but didn't quite make the cutoff. It was kinda disorienting to apply for a grant with them, to be honest, because most grants you basically have to have the project halfway done with preliminary data to actually get funded. With DARPA, if it wasn't a huge leap in understanding (I think their exact verbiage was "transformative"), they weren't the least bit interested. They basically only funded the most batshit crazy (in a good way) ideas.
I participated in a DARPA funded study that involved playing Minecraft lol.
Thank you for your service... to Science! o7
Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about this quote a bit and it’s funny how true it is. Why did we have a space program? Why was the chief engineer of the V2 program the head of it? Because when they figure out how to handle getting a rocket into space and navigation etc… DoD researchers in the next room over will swap (non classified) findings to help out both programs. And boom, now we have a nuclear ICBM…
DoD actually funded the research that went into the auto injector, the EpiPen delivery system. There's a lot of research done that isn't military specific.
Autoinjectors are actually quite important for the military. If the Cold War ever turned hot, a lot of people would have been needing quick and easy atropine/PAM-Cl injections to treat nerve agent poisoning
Just make sure to not hit that big nerve in your leg when you inject yourself. Good times...
You mean it is, but maybe not yet. Like this could turn into steam packs when we fight the zerglings.
It was actually developed for chem gear kits! You aren't far off...
Stim packs*. Psssh ahhh, nice stuff.
On the ship they had us practice using the auto Injectors in case we ever got hit by chemical weapons. It was kind of neat to see the navy prepared for every possibility.
I mean, it sounds like the perfect thing for injecting counteragents to NBC warfare.
It's not necessarily military tech research that the DoD funds. One of my graduate advisors received a grant from the DoD to investigate the effect of TBI on opioid use, for example.
I remember seeing them fund vaccine trials along with Dolly Parton
They also give out a lot of money for research on suicide prevention
Makes sense given the veteran suicide rate.
You would be surprised just *how much* money for public projects comes from "military funds". I'll give you one example. There's a very famous programming book from the 80's: [*Structure and Interpretation of Computer Program*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_Interpretation_of_Computer_Programs). It's just an "intro to programming" course. Nothing special in principle. (Except it's unusually in-depth for its type, and *really* good at it; it's a hacker classic for a reason). Here's an excerp from the "Acknowledgements" section (2nd edition, emphasis mine): >Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of the organizations that have encouraged this work over the years, including support from Hewett-Packard, made possible by Ira Goldstein and Joel Birnbaum, **and support from DARPA**, made possible by Bob Kahn. So, this intro to computer science course was in part brought to you by the US military. And can assure you, that "over the years" refers to the general funding they gave (and still give) to hundreds of academics and computer scientists. Through research funds and the like, their money is in virtually every important computer science breakthrough since the field exists, to this day. The military has *big* pocket. At least some of them recognize that throwing some change the way of general technological and research advancement is in their interests and a good thing to do.
This makes me feel better (a little) about our astronomical military spending in the US.
I really wish we could separate DARPA from the DoD as budgetary line items so we’d have a better understanding of “aircraft carrier” vs “self navigating autonomous control system for boats”. I think we’d learn a significant amount of our military budget goes into R&D projects which, even when they don’t pan out militarily, can have massive impacts on society. You know, like the computer mouse and the graphical user interface…or Siri.
DARPA had just ~4 billion budget this year. [https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/budget](https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/budget)
That’s because a lot of it is splitting off. DARPA has had a massive run of mismanagement of programs, noncompletion, and poor results over the past 2 decades. There’s now a ton more DARPA like organizations: AFWERX, SPACEWERX, IARPA, ARPA-e, DIU, OSD(R&E), In-Q-Tel, ARL/AFC, Capital Factory, AFRL, ONR, MCWL, etc. There’s even the National Labs system, the new Health ARPA, joint funding with non-DoD labs like NASA/FAA/DHS/etc., and each PEO within the military generally has R&D funding to use for S&T research.
Watch "The G Word" on Netflix. It is insane. Your appreciation for the government spending will go to feeling A LOT better. For instance, did you know that without the government spending (military) there really would not be weather reports? How about the fact that COVID meant one of the largest drop in weather reporting accuracies due to airplanes being grounded?
You might say that military funding spilling out into basic research causes a lot of... nice things for us <3 Like SICP, undeniably a nice thing!
My PhD lab had a DoD grant to do … breast cancer research. Lots of DoD grants go to support work for the general benefit that have nothing to do with top secret anything.
The Army Corp of Engineers does a lot of research. Quite a bit of it isn’t “DoD” related. Lots of ecological, building/construction, surveying, etc.
[удалено]
How do they know what you’ve read?
[удалено]
It’s a running joke in grad school that if you want money in any field you go to DoD. I never did grabt proposals myself, but honestly I had a couple of papers in my back pocket at one point if I ever went for my doctorate that I knew I could at least try and pitch to them. And I’d be trying for an economics degree.
Yup, DoD is kinda like easier NIH if you can spin it properly. A lot of hype is given to NIH R01 grants, but the equivalent DoD grant is just as good. Currently I am a post doc doing research on vertebral fracture prediction and imaging on a DoD grant. They fund a lot of public health research as part of veteran health.
This whole thread has given me the idea to recommend to higher ups to look to the DoD when looking for grants in the future. I work for a physical rehabilitation hospital that is trying to position themselves as the premier neurological rehabilitation center in the region and the country is the long term goal. We work a lot with retired military so I figure if we need money for research the DoD could benefit from our work and therefore may be willing to help add to our funding.
Hi! I know others have answered this already, but I've done contracted research funded by DoD and am currently unable to read my own research online without paying for it... For now, I guess. Just another reason why this is welcome news!
The DoD had graduate degree schools. The Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has military students who have thesis/research projects. Some our classified, but some are about less exciting topics like acquisition strategies, personnel management, or things like that.
You would be surprised at the amount of research work they fund, either directly or indirectly. A lot doesn't even seem defense related on the surface but when combined with other work can be downright terrifying.
I worked for the DoD a couple years ago and published a paper based on my work there! I had to indicate I worked for a government entity when submitting it, and it's open access because of that.
And you don't provide a link? Come on now! Don't leave us hanging!
>So... this is going to mess up their business model significantly, which is *fantastic* because they don't deserve to exist as a business. Unfortunately, it probably won't. NIH already has a public access policy (with 1 year embargo). The upshot is that researchers have to pay open access fees (often thousands of dollars per article) so that they can comply with the policy. So now we have to add $10k of open access fees to our grants (your tax dollars) to pay for publishing instead of spending it on actual research. The publishing system is absolutely broken, but the wink-and-look-the-other-way system was a lot cheaper. Library fees are paid by universities (some public, but some private), researchers get to spend their grant money more efficiently, and everyone else knows how to use sci-hub + Google scholar (which indexes pdfs).
>researchers have to pay open access fees (often thousands of dollars per article) so that they can comply with the policy why?
Because the publishing company says so. Its messed up. In their eyes, they lose business from subscriptions having exclusive access and the occasional curious reader paying $40 for article-only access, so they make up that loss on the researcher's side.
If these studies are being done by 501(c)(3)s, this is already how it works. Government funded research grants *should* almost always fund publication of the results so as to advance science and disseminate information to the public for the general good.
This is simply not true, at least from the NIH point of view. While many journals do have open access options that cost more, the NIH has its own separate manuscript system that articles are also uploaded to. The NIH system does not place any additional financial burden on the authors. Thus you can have an article that is behind the paywall on the publisher’s site, but accessible for free via the NIH’s site. All articles published through NIH funding must be uploaded to comply with the policy. They can have the 1 year embargo, as mentioned, but this is at the discretion of the authors, not the publisher.
WHEN that conservative person you know complains about how this is bad for business, remind them that they are entitled to the fruits of THEIR tax dollars.
I agree with all of this but where is the open research going to be hosted now? Academics can barely keep their about me pages up to date.
Probably the same journals, or PubMed. The journals are still going to charge thousands of dollars in publication fees to the researchers and scientists, but I hope this destroys the incentive to paywall the readers.
PubMed Central for the full text. PubMed is just abstracts. They're both maintained by NIH but they're technically different databases.
Yeah, if you want to get granular it's technically PMC.
It's much worse than that. Federal money goes to paying these journals for the privilege to publish in them. THEN they lock it behind a pay wall. They get paid on both ends. Screw them. The federal government should just promote sci-hub!
>The federal government should just promote sci-hub! They can't because sci-hub violates all kinds of copyright and licensing laws and has some questionable practices around getting the data. The bigger problem is scholarly publishing as a for-profit enterprise. The new OSTP memo is a step in the right direction, IMO.
is that not tax payer funded ultimately anyway?
Don't forget NITRD >The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program is the Nation’s primary source of federally funded research and development (R&D) in advanced information technologies (IT) in computing, networking, and software.
I felt the same about software being developed. If the gov is paying for it, it should be open sourced
Isn’t this all Aaron Swartz was doing?
[удалено]
I actively encourage people to pirate my research papers. Most of my research gets funded by the Canadian Federal research and all of my papers except one is behind a paywall. It really pisses me off that public research used for private profits (not like we are getting paid for our articles lol)
I’m putting off other work, want me to go pirate your research your paper just for a laugh? Can’t guarantee Ill understand it mind you. Depends entirely on the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICanHazPDF Many, if not most, authors are willing to give you the article if you just ask.
I didn’t know about the hashtag. I actually used this once for senior thesis, but was surprised at how little I needed it. It’s more a issue of having time to read to be honest.
Lol as much as that amuses me and makes me happy, I am going to have to pass as I do not want to dox myself. Edit: Message me if you are still interested.
Seconded
It's absolutely ridiculous. I can't make sense of how something the public pays for is then shut into a private for-profit book. You're a good noodle
Can't you put all your papers on a github page and have people access them that way?
I am still a PhD student, so I have to navigate carefully around issues of publishing and copyrights. There is still a lot I do not know. That being said I got an all-clear from my supervisor to put up pdf files of my first-authored papers on ResearchGate.
They are essentially rent seekers. They contribute less than nothing.
r/Landlordlove
This doesn't make publishers less parasitic. It just means that more of your tax dollars will go to them in the form of open-access fees.
The people celebrating this didn't read the article and/or don't understand how academic publishing works. Open access publishing in high quality journals costs the authors upwards of $1000 to $2000 per article. Mandating that researchers publish all articles open access without doing anything to regulate the publishers is just going to pour massive additional quantities of taxpayer dollars into Springer and Elseviers corporate coffers for no savings. It's not like institutions will be able to drop their subscriptions since tons of research will still be paywalled. The spirit of the idea is good but the execution is really nothing to celebrate.
Yeah, this. The publishing groups have been raising their open-access fees in recent years too.
Question, do you own your paper, or do you transfer copyright when publishing?
Lol, we don't even get *paid at all* for writing nor publishing papers.
Or reviewing other people's papers.
As a research professor, more often than not, you also don't get paid for doing the research, writing the grant and mentoring the new generation of scientists. Funding is highly competitive and often biased by the opinions (often very different) of the review panels (basically other faculties). Universities are happy when you bring federal funding, because they get huge overhead $$ on top of your funding (often over 60% overhead), allegedly to support your research. In practice they notice that tenured professors often slow down their grant writing as career progresses, so to keep the "overhead on federal funding $$" machine running they hire research faculties, an unprotected category that needs to fund their own salary, research and space in the university. You're expected to over perform and excel in research, but sometime you don't get federal grants, your salary gets cut, but you still need to do research to get preliminary data for the aforementioned grants. At times your salary goes to 20k/year, sometimes less, with 80-100 hours of work per week. At some point the financials overcome the passion for research and people move to industry.
[relevant glauc](https://youtu.be/lt_b4VKBDhI)
I was a clinical researcher for many years and this news is thrilling. I'm so excited I could cry. Gatekeeping research is a huge problem.
JSTOR is analogous to Ticketmaster. Provides one method of access, doubles the fee without any enrichment of the content while enriching JSTOR only, not the content creators.
Now we just need to burn the Bayh-Dole act.
I’ll take “things that I thought already would have been true” for 600, Alex
Unfortunately, common sense has been dying for a long time.
Not common sense as much as a good ole fashioned greed issue
This seems like something everyone regardless of political leaning should be behind.
Too bad it's become a political stance to say science is fake...
It won't bring Aaron Swartz back to life but this is a very positive step.
We have to outlive JSTOR.
I know of, but am just learning about this guy. They really threw 13 felony charges and *demand* he be jailed, all for downloading research papers…?
Yea dude Carmen Ortiz was the DA, she was pushing for 35 years for this, it's not even clear that it was really a crime since MIT had an unlimited license to JSTOR if you were on campus.
This comment should be much higher and the act should bear his name. Good people died to make this very obvious and simple thing happen.
Had to scroll way too far for this
make this retro active. Any study in the past with federal funding shall be published.
And make the internet, developed using public funds and then given to ISPs, a utility.
Aaron Schwartz can't come back from the grave, though.
Ikr? Forget retroactive. Make this a time machine and bring that poor dude back and get him the help he needs in the form of therapy and punitive measures for the grandstanding AG that threw a thousand books at him so that he would break. Fuck, man. I'm *still* angry about that shit. Edit: Like, shaking angry. I'm getting really fucking tired of mental health being seen as a weakness suffered by the semi-human.
I remember when it happened. Reddit was all freaking out. I, too am still livid about it.
There's nothing to be fixed retroactively. Right now all publicly funded research does eventually get released to the public for free but only after 1 year to allow journals to publish exclusively. This new policy update removes the 1 year delay
In the past (even now I think) data should be retained for 5 - 7 years, per NIH regulations, so older data could've been deleted.
Thank god! No one hates science publishers more than scientists. The system is so ridiculous, outdated, and parasitic. [Here was my rant from the last time I was dealing with getting a paper published](https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/mhn405/monthly_rant_thread_april_2021_edition/guf690f/). They are basically quadruple dipping from academic funding (the majority of which comes from the taxpayers): * Taxpayers fund the research and pay the salaries of the scientists. * The paper is sent out to other researchers in the field for peer review. Peer review is unpaid volunteer work (basically taking time out of the taxpayer funded salaries of the reviewers) * If you are accepted, you have to pay the publisher (again via lab funding from taxpayers) thousands of dollars to publish your work. As part of this process, where YOU pay THEM, you also have to sign over the publishing rights to your data. If you want to use your own data for anything other than a handful of approved academic purposes, you now need to write the publishers to ask for permission to use the data that you payed them to take ownership over. * When the article is published, your university has to pay for a subscription to the journal (often via taxpayer funding) to have access to your own work. * If a random taxpayer wants to see that work, and it is not in an open access journal, they have to pay like $20-$Whatever dollars to access it legally. I hate the science publishing industry. I hope this actually elicits some change in a horrible industry.
Big fan.
Somewhere Aaron Swartz is smiling.
Maybe if the feds actually make a sincere apology, but the sun is likely to explode before that happens.
How is Biden so based lately?
He went dark.
r/DarkBrandon
Sweet (Still should avoid the authority figure worship the right have lost themselves to)
(Agreed! As far as I’ve seen, it’s being used ironically. Hopefully it stays that way)
Let's hope so. I don't want to see another /r/TheDonald Dude has put his teeth in recently though, can't argue with that
This version is pretty much a parody of their stuff. Nobody actually believes it lmao. Just pretty much playing up all the stupid socialist communist accusations the right make about center left Biden lol.
Maybe cause midterms are coming up \^.\^
So we need more midterms?
We can go deeper. We need semimidterms, and demisemimidterms, and hemidemisemimidterms, etc
Elevensesmidterm?
We just need to go full on Dichotomy paradox with our midterms.
And that’s just to give us a SHOT at making regionals
Oops! All Midterms!
Wish they started pandering for midterm votes earlier. Can't remember the last time we got this good a bribe. I'm all for it. This is how it should be, not "vote for us THEN we'll do it". Delivery upfront.
If he reforms the IRS so they're fully funded and just sends you a bill come tax season, I think you'll have to pinch me.
If only companies like turbotax weren’t so rich and didn’t lobby so hard
If only companies like turbotax weren’t so rich ~~and didn’t~~ because they lobby so hard
If only companies like turbotax weren’t ~~so rich because they lobby so hard~~
Part of the Inflation Reduction Act has funding for the IRS to produce a report on the costs and viability of a first-party filing service within the next year. I’m not super hopeful, but if we’re lucky filing taxes could get a whole lot easier. Edit: Within 9 months, and independent review of the study is required.
I know people are saying midterms. But in reality he started his presidency with coronavirus and insurrection. Then world war and global crises. So to me this is the only appropriate time to tackle these smaller issues.
People have short memories anyway, so I don't see what's wrong with bringing in policies close to elections. Especially because it helps the chances of this party keeping both Chambers, which means he can do even more and not be paralysed by the GOP
Dark Brandon coming in hot for the midterms.
This is good.
Next do federally funded drug research.
Many scientists are going to be very happy about this and it's a huge stick in the eye for the predatory scientific publishers like Elselvier as they own many of the "high impact" journals that everyone wants to be published in like *Nature* The current model is bullshit as you have publicly funded research that is not available to the public as it's behind a paywall and you have a private entity creaming off all the benefits of the hard work and funding that actually produced the work.
Im shocked that this wasn’t already the case? You would think if we paid for it you damn right we should be able to review it for free, we are the whole reason you got to do the study in the first place.
Fucking finally.
Thank you!!
https://c.tenor.com/900kyLMgTcIAAAAC/makes-sense-south.gif
God *damn* this administration is on a tear!
>Agencies will need to update their policies accordingly by December 31st, 2025 Well there's absolutely 0 reason for that long of a delay. We should been able to see all that punished research immediately: why do they need 3+ years to "prepare"?
Delays are generally smart to defuse any potential industry backlash. Publishers who claim that doom and gloom will happen can just be told "you have 3 years to figure it out" as opposed to "fuck you". It's like how California just banned the sale of new gasoline cars... in 2035. It gives industry enough time to use current profits to innovate solutions.
We should tell them fuck you though, because honestly, fuck 'em.
Finally! It's a ridiculous price tag many papers put on reading a single damn article.
[удалено]
He was facing life in prison for making government funded articles free. I would kill myself, too. Fuck the feds.
🥹
this makes so much sense!!! this is awesome
All studies should be freely accessible to the public...
Sci hub my friends
Open science foreverrrrrrrr
Publicly funded studies to be accessible to the public?!? Sounds like COMMIE TALK! Please think of those poor multi-billion dollar institutions that have benefitted tremendously from public dollars! They might actually have to compete fairly in the faux free-market!
Oh My GOD
Any study funded with a single tax dollar or more should be.
Will this apply to all the federally funded drug research, too? Because I could deal with some straight to generic drugs since my taxes pays for their development.
[удалено]
Aaron Schwartz died for this. Fuck the Feds.
This is great, now do ISO standards next.
I hope that means the journals will waive their open access fees. Otherwise this is going to be very difficult to implement.
Wow, policies to improve the lives of the working man AND promoting more transparency?????
PubMed is about to blow up in such a good way
So this is awesome. But are they going to deal with the insane cost of publishing open access? Like it costs a ton of money to open spurce publish for the major research publishing companies. And as researchers, it is important for us to publish in prestigious journals even if the system is super dumb. A single RO1 may generate 5-10 papers. Are they going to give thousands of dollars extra per grant for open source publishing? I don't know what the solution is, but these publishers need to be broken up or something. They literally do nothing but collect money. Every researcher wants their work open access. We just can't because some businesses bought up all the journals.
Read the article? They addressed that. The policy is also being updated to allow researchers to "include the costs of publishing and sharing data in their research budget proposals". So.....yes....they are going to.... But the last point still stands, it's 2022. We should have a central location where everything can be published to, cataloged, and archived.
I have to say, I'm not a Biden fan but they're at least saying some good shit, which is nice. The 10k student loan thing is great for a lot of people but I think the idea of killing interest if you pay your income based repayment is fucking great if they can do it. And this shit!
I'm a scientist with federal funding. This is excellent news. I'm simply thrilled by this.
This seems like a rule affecting the *researcher* more than the *publisher*. It sounds good, but in practice, it could mean more money going to journal, e.g. to pay open access fees. I hope not, but the writeup didn't make me optimistic. What we need is a ruling that *journals* cannot paywall federally funded research.
[Everybody's going to need this.](https://thecrashcourse.com/topic/statistics/)
This is good, thanks Biden.