Letters

Regarding "Letter from Philip Barnett" (Winter 1999)

Perhaps certain points in my article/rebuttal were not clear.

Philip Barnett implies that I had a problem with Marc Brodsky's intelligence or character. Not so. My essential problem with AIP/APS (not Brodsky in particular) is their policy of leveraging the shortfall in library funding to their commercial benefit. They abdicated their mission and their responsibilities to their members and the taxpayers that subsidize  them. This policy betrays the mission that is clearly stated in every catalog and membership brochure:

"promoting the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and its application to human welfare."

Barnett also suggests that I want increases in the research budget. I do not. I want parity for libraries. I call for reforms in the allocation of resources.  There is no need for, "asking for even more  from the federal government," as Barnett implies. It would make more sense for science policy to emphasize library research and resource so that grant proposals and peer reviews would be better informed. I can suggest three more reforms that need no added Federal money.

• The allocation of indirect overhead should be earmarked to support collections for preparation of research, (rather than as an administrative afterthought tied to grants already awarded)
• Federal science agencies should qualify the resources that their contractors use, just as USDA assures the quality of food by inspecting and approving food processing plants.
• Federal science agencies should emphasize the comprehensive (task-force if need be) study of all scientific results in many areas of science, medicine, and technology before considering new proposals. "Work smarter, not harder."

I also think universities' unspent revenues are excessive.

We welcome your comments about this article.