Pharmaceuticals and publishing are the two most
striking areas of failure in the capitalist system which, for the most part, has
encouraged the creation of new things and improvements on the old, and has
brought those things to a competitive market at prices that favor the sale of
quantity – in other words, cheaply so the quality of life can be good even for
the poor.
Wal-Mart may not have the most glowing record as an employer but its
ability to make good food and clothing available at very low prices is evident.
But the protections of that broad field of
production defined as intellectual property has become highly problematic in an
age when that very sort of property is disseminated by the internet which has a
strong bias in favor of pricelessness – in both meanings of the word.
I’ve written before about the book publishing
industry – in particular the major trade publishers in the United States,
especially those massive conglomerates that center upon Random House and
Viking/Penguin (now reduced, thanks to merger, to just Random House.)
Instead of
cooperating with Amazon, lowering prices and going for quantity sales, they
fought Amazon, determined to keep control of their pricing and to keep their
prices high.
The discount model of retailing has long shown that low prices and
quantity sales can result in higher overall profits, but the publishers,
grasping after an old fashioned dignity, could not see the value of that
business model (although their predecessors in management certainly did in
coming forth with good quality paperbacks very cheaply – but now even the
paperbacks are expensive.)
These publishers missed entirely the advantages of the e-book
which costs six cents to maintain and send out -- with Amazon as distributor (in
place of warehousing, shipping and 40% to the bookstore) taking just 30% of the price above the six cent cost.
Of course those people in the arts and sciences who write,
who do research and devise new things, must be paid; they must be recompensed and
rewarded for their time.
But it’s not the
creators who are gaining the outrageous profits, it’s the publishers, the
corporations, and specifically the executives of those corporations, for heaven
knows the stock holders and those corporate workers who are not at the higher
levels of management aren’t enjoying big pay-outs.
Pharmaceutical firms rank as the worst, charging
prices that only the most cynical corporate policies could invent.
It's
unconscionable that firms that create and control medications that are required
to cure deadly diseases should fix their prices so high that only the very rich
can afford them.
One might see in this a managerial class arrogance that
effectively is committing a selective genocide of the poor and those who are only
moderately well off.
But another area of nearly equally unconscionable pricing has
come to my attention. That of the publishing of scientific research – articles
at the cutting edge of research across all fields. Articles necessary for that
very advancement in which capitalism so prides itself.
Robert Darnton, in his article “A World Digital
Library Is Coming True!” in The New York Review of Books (May 22, 2014),
despite his encouraging title, informs us of the following: “The average price
of a year’s subscription to a chemistry journal is now $4,040. In 1970 it was
$33.
A subscription to the Journal of
Comparative Neurology cost $30,860 in 2012 – the equivalent of six hundred
monographs.
Three giant publishers – Reed Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell and Springer – publish 42% of all academic articles. In 2013 Elsevier turned a 39% profit on an income of 2.1 billion pounds from its science, technology and medical journals.”
Three giant publishers – Reed Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell and Springer – publish 42% of all academic articles. In 2013 Elsevier turned a 39% profit on an income of 2.1 billion pounds from its science, technology and medical journals.”
(I highly recommend that anyone interested in
serious discussions of what’s happening in the world subscribe to The New York
Review of Books – which is in no way limited to just reviewing books but takes
a sweeping and in-depth view of what is important to all of us.)
These outrageous publishers of scientific papers are dependent upon
scientists, researchers, universities for their journals’ content. Why would
anyone, knowing their work is going to be so limited in distribution – and so
abused for the benefit of corporate management – chose to publish with them?
Prestige is a significant factor. These publishers, back in the days when they
had decent corporate policies, became the grantors of academic imprimatur – if
it was published by them it was to be taken seriously.
But now one must
consider that what is published by them perhaps need not be taken seriously –
for the authors must know that few in their fields can afford to see what they’ve
written.
The United States Congress has attempted to answer
this problem, repeatedly putting forward legislation that would require that
research paid for by government grants and subsidies be made available free of
charge – after all the research has already been funded by the tax payers.
But
the high prices publishers charge mean they have plenty of funding for lobbying
to keep their prices high – and to our shame, too many of our legislators can
be bought. Else neither the high prices of needed drugs nor the high prices of
research information could be sustained beyond a single legislative session.
Congress, Robert Darnton tells us, succeeded in
requiring that research funded by the National Institute of Health be free of
charge at PubMed Central—but lobbyists got a one-year moratorium on
publication.
That means any company using the research to bring out a new
product must pay the publisher’s exorbitant price or miss the competitive
market.
Ugly, isn’t it. And directly counter to our liberal
notions of a free market. It seems only the rich -- individual people or
corporations -- should be allowed to survive.
But the positive title to Darnton’s article has a
basis. The very scientists who write the articles upon which the costly journals
depend are now rebelling.
In 2010 the faculty at the University of California
boycotted the Nature Publishing Company when it informed the university’s
library that it was raising its prices by 400%. The faculty of UC, over the years,
had contributed 5,300 articles to that ungrateful publication.
Even more to the point, Harvard, MIT, the University
of Michigan, Johns Hopkins and the University of California at Berkley and San
Francisco have moved to the use of “open access journals” (which means free of charge.) They
have even created funds to cover the processing fees, which apparently can be
considerable in converting an academic article filled with odd characters and
spacings into something uploadable to the internet.
Realizing that readership is far more important than
the old and formerly respectable name of a publisher, these universities have
opted for that “free exchange of ideas” that constructive innovation and the
success of capitalism requires.
Darnton, citing John Houghton, a specialist in
the economics of information, tells us that in 2006 “a 5% increase in the
accessibility of information would have produced an increase in productivity
worth $16 billion.”
At what cost to us all does anyone still indulge in
the delusion of the prestige of publishing in the old and now ridiculously over-priced
academic journals?
To subscribe to The New York Review of Books: nyrsub@nybooks.com
Katherine Ashe is the author of the Montfort series, a four-volume novelized biography of Simon de Montfort, the founder of modern democracy:
http://www.amazon.com/Katherine-Ashe/e/B004OTWHNQ/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1403480789&sr=1-2-ent
book website: www.simon-de-montfort.com
personal website: www.katherineashe.com
book website: www.simon-de-montfort.com
personal website: www.katherineashe.com