27 January 2008

To the overall success of a nation and its people - to sustain competitive relevance in a world market and to pave the way towards continued innovation - education, research, and development are integral to be encouraged, fostered, and subsidized. Towards this end is a 'democratization' of ideas, information, knowledge, and even the arts - 'ars gloria cultura' - at the heart of the open source movement. Just as there are two principal (capitalistic) business models (cutting back for profit and growth or investing for growth), so too are there two principal directions for knowledge and education in an 'internet world': open or closed.

The most recently published proponent of the 'open' direction is Intel's Chairman, Craig Barrett. As more a reaction to a "recent budget deal between Republicans and Democrats" to undercut government spending on scientific research and math and science education, Barrett effectively and passionately wrestles the 'political tree' (Craig Barrett, "Flagging economy needs science investments," San Francisco Chronicle, 20 January 2008). He sums up succinctly and aptly:

"At a time when the rest of the world is increasing its emphasis on math and science education...and increasing their budgets for basic engineering and physical science research, Congress is telling the world these areas are not important to our future. At a time when we are failing our next generation of students, politically charged topics such as steroids in Major League Baseball and the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes command instantaneous congressional hearings while the seed corn...of our future is ignored and placed lower in priority than billions of dollars of earmarks."

No doubt true in every sense, should he be shocked?

This is not new and surely he must realize this not as pressing, but rather as a consistency of the failings within the American political arena...

And this arena, along with its surrounding realities must be amended, corrected, dare say - overturned - or it will forever be left to be railed against...

Following suit from Congress' model, the recording industry, radio, and most notably, medical research, is also (somewhat publicly) firmly maintaining its staunch position in a closed forum and dead-end direction of seeming regression:

1) Whereas Barrett calls for the encouragement of math and science in particular and education in general, the recording industry would rather pursue vigorous monetary litigation against college students in the name of 'piracy crackdowns' (Verne Kopytoff, "Recording industry threatens to sue students," San Francisco Chronicle, 22 January 2008). Despite the fact that such litigation goes against the heart and spirit of education - of open-source, of sharing knowledge, culture, and the arts in the name of broadening minds for a collective growth and development - the industry is holding firm to its position.

2) Along a similar vein, Arizona's Proposition 300 legislates against college students who can not prove their legal residence by denying them state financial aid (Jesse McKinley, "Arizona Law Takes a Toll On Nonresident Students," The New York Times, 27 January 2008). Although they argue the Proposition is a means (effective or otherwise) to crackdown on illegal immigration, it effectively discourages an 'open' mindset towards educational growth, empowerment, and sharing in a supposedly colleagial and collaborative environment.

In every sense, this is a proposition inappropriate in a collegial setting...

Pity, our businesses can successfully and almost seamlessly adopt collaborative partnerships for open growth, but our educational institutions and the very powers effecting and affecting knowledge-creation and enhancement can not and will not...

3) From education and the music industry to the very air above us, there is a 'closed movement' taking momentum. In Washington, it was recently announced that Verizon, AT&T, and Google will participate in an auction for "a highly valuable swath of the nation's airwaves...to include multibillion-dollar bids" (Stephen Labaton, "Airwaves, Web Power at Auction," The New York Times, 22 January 2008). The parcelling out of radio spectrum licenses as "the building blocks for the next generation of broadband services" appears to be the last remaining bastion of closing an erstwhile free entity - of transmogrifying a free element and autonomous entity into a commodity - chained and thus, defiled.

4) Here is where the movement to free information becomes critical - at the level of every human being, no matter race, religion, political affiliation, and economic status: medical (oncology) research.

Nothing is more equalizing than mortality, illness, and the united voice for our cures.

Nothing unites man more than a call for wellness, quality of life, and the pursuit of a life lived in happiness (to at least a modicum degree)...

So what possible explanation or excuse can we give for the proclivities in research towards secrecy and hording information, rather than for open forums of shared discussion and fostered environments of cross-collaborative and interdisciplinary public research? In a world where we can mediate a transcendence over our physicality - limitations of time, space, and geography - through electronic technologies, even one fatality to cancer is one too many. There should be a zero-tolerance to death by cancer when there are cures kept secret - in the name of profit.

To repeat and yes, I did state it: there are cures for the cancers killing thousands today. Pity the cures are kept secret, discouraged, discredited, and even ridiculed...but that is to the (Western) medical 'profession' to answer...

...and whether their answer is HIPAA, fear of litigation, or uncomfortability in sharing data, the answer is inadequate and unacceptable when it comes at the sacrifice of lost lives by the minute (Andrew Vickers, "Cancer Data? Sorry, Can't Have It," The New York Times, 22 January 2008).

-----------------------------------------------------

Living in a 'walking city' I inevitably lose patience when witnessing someone who vacillates between left and right side of the street, refusing to let others pass by - others who know to pick a side and stay the course - but here is where vacillation becomes dangerous in setting precedence:

Rupert Murdoch almost had it right when he announced to Australian shareholders his intent to allow free access to the Wall Street Journal site to draw more readers and advertising revenue (Richard Perez-Pena, "Murdoch Said to Stress Free Access to Wall St. Journal's Web Site," The New York Times, 14 November 2007). Where he fell short is in his (wavering, lack of) follow-through, as revealed in his announcement to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to continue charging for content (Richard Perez-Pena, "Wall St. Journal to Continue Its Charges for Web Content," The New York Times, 25 January 2008).

Unfortunately, in not staying his course, rather than set the pace to 'free' information, Murdoch further sustains the precedence of inaccountability and the further shackling of an erstwhile open and free society within the net...

And so in the spheres of innovation, research, education, and development, we heed no example from our business sphere and resign ourselves to regression. 

Where it is most vital to our overall sustainability and competitive relevance to take action and progress forward, we stumble, we stammer, we stall...

...to what end?