The Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (VELiM) is hosting an event on the academic publishing industry and the commercialization of knowledge production.
In recent years there has been a lot of self-reflection about the effects of neoliberalism on the university and the practices of teaching and research. This symposium will focus on academic publishing and the impacts of paywalls on academic practices, but also democratic access to knowledge required for policy-making and informed public debate.
Speaking to The Guardian, Dr Claire Hooker outlined some of the concerns associated with current academic publishing practice, saying:
There are people out there who are worried about the effects of medicines, or who want to know more about the evidence informing the health policies that affect them, but they can’t find the answers because they hit a paywall.
Professor Paul Komesaroff (Monash), who will also be part of the symposium, argues that more open and democratic models of publishing are needed. According to Komesaroff, scholars are looking for these models. However, it appears that the current institutional arrangements and intensives make it difficult to imagine alternatives.
The symposium looks to explores some of these alternatives. For more information see the below.
- Type: Seminar
- Date: Wednesday 26 August 2015
- Time: 9.00 AM to 4.00 PM
- Venue: State Library, Mitchell Wing
- Cost: Free
- Click here to book
Speakers include: Emeritus Professor Stephen Leeder, Professor Paul Komesaroff, Associate Professor Andrew Bonnell, Dr John Byron, JoAnne Sparks, Dr Virginia Barbour, Rosalia Garcia (SAGE), and Professor Christopher Wright.
Chair: Dr Claire Hooker
The symposium will comprise four sessions:
- 9:00-10:30 Session 1: Corporatization and the commercialization of knowledge
- 11:00-12:00 Session 2: Democratizing knowledge or selling the farm? The emergence and challenges of ‘Open Access’
- 12:00-1:00 Session 3: Dissolving barriers – and boundaries: Scholars and the possibilities of the new digital knowledge commons
- 2:00-4:00 Session 4: Taking up the challenge of ethical academic publication
Catering is provided
For more information please contact;
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine
T +61 410 161841 | E firstname.lastname@example.org
By Wendy Lipworth, University of Sydney and Ian Kerridge, University of Sydney
In the endless drive to get people’s attention, advertising is going ‘native’, creeping in to places formerly reserved for editorial content. In this Native Advertising series we find out what it looks like, if readers can tell the difference, and more importantly, whether they care.
Academic medical researchers are hot property for companies marketing pharmaceuticals, complementary medicines, medical devices, fitness equipment, weight loss products, “health foods” and other health-related goods and services. Their opinions are highly respected by the general public, and their endorsement in the media of a product can help to ensure consumers and patients purchase it, or at least discuss it with their “health care provider”.
But this raises a question: why would an academic researcher choose to endorse a health-related product in the general media?
The most worrying explanation is that the academic is being employed by the company to speak favourably about its product. Such commercial relationships are rarely made transparent and rely on a public perception that academics are objective observers and commentators. For the most part, however, this is unlikely to be the case.
A far more likely explanation is that any academic endorsement occurs in the context of a long and mutually productive relationship with the company concerned. Academics are frequently targeted by companies on the grounds that they provide authority and act as “key opinion leaders” who are able to influence the opinions, beliefs and behaviours of others in both professional and public arenas.
This relationship with industry is frequently one of many. Academics who comment on products have frequently partnered with the company in its clinical trials of the product; put his or her name to the resulting academic publications; provided strategic advice on how to have the product regulated and perhaps subsidised by the government; or given talks to other academics and clinicians about the research (if not the product itself). Continue reading