Free the Sciences
Nearly 25,000 scientists from 165 countries have signed an open letter calling
for a free central electronic archive of published scientific literature,
and are threatening to boycott journals that don’t agree to release
their articles six months after publication.
“Since the time of the great library of Alexandria, scholars have
recognized the value of central repositories of knowledge,” Richard
Roberts and other scientists wrote in the journal Science. “Bringing
all of the scientific literature together in a common format will encourage
the development of new, more sophisticated and valuable ways of using
this information.”
Although the Internet has the potential to speed up the retrieval of
obscure research from electronically archived journals, scientists say
they are increasingly frustrated by journal publishers’ insistence
on charging exorbitant fees for access to back issues at the same time
that they do not pay scientists for their work.
While some publishers of scientific journals support putting journals
into an online archive six months to a year after publication, others
caution that it could expose them to losses in online sales and advertising
revenues that pay for peer review of articles and other editing work.
The editors of Science say free online access may also result in lost
subscriptions from academic libraries which provide an economic “floor”
that guarantees financial sustainability, especially for specialized journals.
But proponents of online archives say a six-month “lease” on
original research reports should allow the publishers to recover their
costs and make a profit. “Few scientists who currently subscribe
to journals would want to wait six months to read about the latest results
in their field,” say Patrick O. Brown and Michael Eisen, the coordinators
of the Public Library of Science.
Chad Oil Update
The World Bank announced a $100 million loan in June for the controversial
Chad-Cameroon pipeline project despite continued doubts about the Chadian
government’s commitment to human rights.
The Bank first approved the project, which involves developing oil fields
in Chad and construction of a 670-mile pipeline and offloading facility
on the Atlantic coast of Cameroon, in June 2000 [See “Fueling Strife
in Chad and Cameroon” Multinational Monitor, May 1997].
The main multinationals involved in the project include ExxonMobil (with
a 40 percent equity stake), Malaysia-based Petronas (35 percent) and Chevron
(25 percent).
“The project represents a pioneering effort by the World Bank to
create an unprecedented framework to transform oil wealth into direct
benefits for the poor, the vulnerable and the environment,” says
Ludwina Joseph of the World Bank.
The Bank loan requires the government of Chad to spend 70 percent of
the project’s expected $2 billion 25-year revenues on health care,
education, agriculture and other infrastructure.
But doubts about the Bank’s ability to control misuse of funds were
fueled last year when $3 million of the first loan disbursement was used
to buy weapons observers say are intended for use against Chadian citizens.
Chadian President Idriss Deby, who came to power in a bloody military
coup in 1990, was re-elected on May 20. Shortly after the election, one
opposition supporter was killed, six opposition candidates thrown in jail
and two newspapers shut down.
“World Bank statements about the oil project’s role as a catalyst
for sustainable development and improving the lives of the poor are at
best naive,” says Delphine Djiraibe, a spokesperson for the Chadian
Association for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights.
The Sweaties
While the Retail Council of Canada was presenting its “Excellence
in Retailing Awards” in June at its annual conference inside the
Toronto Convention Center, members of the Canadian Maquiladora Solidarity
Network (MSN) and Oxfam held a mock awards ceremony outside, where they
announced the winners of this year’s Sweatshop Retailer Awards —
also known as “the Sweaties.”
Based on an on-line tally of 3,000 consumer votes, the “Sweatshop
Retailer of the Year” award was given to Disney. Disney received
the most votes based on a report by the Hong Kong Christian Industrial
Committee which documented sweatshop abuses in 12 Disney supply factories
in China. The report charges that young women making Disney clothes and
toys are forced to work up to 16 hours a day, six or seven days a week
for wages as low as $60 a month.
Wal-Mart, last year’s winner, received this year’s “Smokescreen
Award” for the company hiding the most from its customers. Meanwhile,
the company was barely edged out for the “Socially Responsible Retailer”
award from the retail industry.
Liz Claiborne received a “Transparency Award” from the activists
for agreeing to make public a highly critical report on factory conditions
by the Guatemalan independent monitoring group COVERCO. “While Liz
Claiborne is far from sweat-free, accepting independent monitoring and
disclosing critical reports are important steps in the right direction,”
says MSN’s Bob Jeffcott.
Transparency is the theme of this year’s “No Sweat” campaign,
which is demanding changes in Canadian regulations to require retailers
to publicly disclose production locations for all apparel products sold
in Canada.
— Charlie Cray
|
