https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter?wprov=sfla1

  • moog@lemm.ee
    ·
    10 months ago

    "...he sought funding from the private sector to start Celera Genomics. The company planned to profit from their work by creating genomic data to which users could subscribe for a fee."

    Fuck this guy

  • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
    ·
    10 months ago

    For folks that don't know, Venter had a company, Celera, they competed with the Human Genome Project (HGP) run by the US Gov't. They developed interesting techniques to sequence, I believe they are credited with shotgun sequencing.

    How were they able to compete?? The HGP published all their work openly, Venter and co used the freely accessible data alongside their own proprietary methods to try and sequence the human genome first themselves.

    If I recall correctly it was considered a tie and they both jointly published the first sequenced human genome in Science.

      • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]
        ·
        10 months ago

        Aw crap, my bad, appreciate the correction. I thought they applied it in a novel way or something? Anyways Venter's business practice sucks.

        • windowlicker [she/her]
          ·
          10 months ago

          yeah, from what i remember, they pioneered a form of it called double-barrel shotgun sequencing, where both ends of the sequenced DNA fragment are analyzed for overlap instead of just one.

  • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not even sure what he’s talking about. Open access journals are the ones who charge authors to publish.

    If you publish in a journal that has closed access, there is generally no fee to publish. If you want your paper to be open access, you can tack on an additional open access fee so that your paper doesn’t end up behind a paywall. The last time I looked - and this was several years ago - the going rate for making your paper open access in a closed access journal was about $2-3k. We always budgeted for publication fees when we were putting together our funding proposals.

    The fee structure is similar for open access journals, except that there’s not a choice about paying them. For researchers whose work isn’t grant funded, it generally means they’re paying out of pocket, unless their institution steps in.

    I had a paper published in a small but (in its field) prestigious journal, and the editor explained to me that he only charges people who can afford it, and uses those funds to cover the costs of the journal. He explained that he had a paper from a researcher who couldn’t cover the publishing fee, and he let me know that I was helping out the other person, too.

    What I don’t understand is how anyone how has gone through academia doesn’t know this.

  • lugal@lemmy.ml
    ·
    10 months ago

    Tbf he evolutionarily developed that genome all by himself. That's how capitalism works

  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Surely there has to be a cost to the infrastructure of publishing and curation though. And possibly all the work of setting up and organizing the peer review process. So they probably charge the institutions or authors submitting the paper instead of their readers. But perhaps we should treat scientific journals as a public good, like libraries, or at least have a publicly funded option. Or have universities and institutions fund it for the public good.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      ·
      10 months ago

      But it's mostly a scam. The costs don't remotely compare to the revenue. Reviewers time is not paid, and there's a price to both publish and access. It's all about the prestige to publish. If you contact the author directly they'll typically gladly send you the article for free.

      • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Oh absolutely. I agree. I don't think anyone's disputing that something about it needs to change. Even given that things cost money to run, for profit journals that can basically act as gatekeepers means there's also going to be excessive price gouging and profiteering and that needs to change.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          The issue is partly that, over time, private entities are going to price gouge or take similar measures (see: "enshittification") in order to keep growing as profit falls over time. That's just how the profit motive works, it eventually optimizes everything for profit, not just what you are comfortable with having turned into a vehicle aimed solely at making money.

          So yes, this and many other important things should be treated as public goods.

  • jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Well, he does have a point though. #OpenAccess

    Footnote: Yeah, I saw that he had done some bad faith research, but remember open access is for everyone in the world, not just free rider corporate shills.

    Footnote 2: If it is not feasible to go for gold OA journals, please go for green route: publish in closed but allows authors to put it up on preprint like arXiv.