Actually, I work for Science's parent organization, AAAS. I do some web stuff for Science Online. I'm the webmaster for the Membership, Meetings, and Circulation dept., so I hear plenty about these things.
> > Perhaps this afternoon I will share my thoughts about this. Needless to
> > say, major publishers are under the gun these days and they have to come
> > up with new gimmicks.
>
> Science publishes what is going on in science. The deal described is just
> indicative.
Well, Science has been working on this deal for several months. Like any other publisher in this era of declining circulation, you have to find new gimmicks to get people to subscribe to the magazine. I'm told that we are also publishing some stuff from NIH, but perhaps I'm confused and our competitor, Nature, is doing that.
Personally, since I'm an anarchist, I favor the open sourcing of genomic data. Even the stuff done by Celera was paid for indirectly by the taxpayers.
At the same time, I should point out that the scientists who oppose this deal and the general privitization of genomic data (and I agree with these guys), will eventually be rebutted with questions about *their research* being patented by their employers (labs or universities). Given the intertwining of corporate money into all sectors of science these days, it will be hard for any critic to be totally uncorrupted.
Chuck0 * these opionions are mine and do not represent AAAS.