Comment by michael_nielsen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael_nielsen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

michael_nielsen

Cornyn has for many years been a leader on open access to science. Together with Joe Lieberman he introduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) into Congress in 2006. This Act would, if passed, make almost all scientific publications funded by the US Govt openly accessible within 6 months of publication:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_...

The act has not yet passed. It was re-proposed in 2010 and 2012, each time with increased support from a bi-partisan group of sponsors, in both Houses. Cornyn is still a sponsor.

My understanding is that Cornyn was instrumental in the passage of the 2008 NIH public access policy, which makes NIH-funded research available within 6 months of publication:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

This is by far the largest victory for open access to date. It would, however, be eclipsed by FRPAA, should it pass.

Given all this, I believe it is natural that Cornyn has an interest in the case, and questions.

Sen. Cornyn is also the former Attorney General for Texas and a former judge. He's a serious guy on these issues and one of the top thinkers on judiciary issues for the GOP.

Speaking as a Texan, I do not recall seeing any evidence that, in his former role as Attorney General for Texas, he was serious about reigning in prosecutorial abuse. He didn't really make any effort to reduce the prosecutorial overreach and over-imprisonment perpetrated by his own office when he had that opportunity, and he hasn't made any effort at reform in the Senate, either. If anything, his main efforts over the years have been in the opposite direction: to imprison more people, for longer sentences, with fewer procedural safeguards and less court oversight.

I blame the "tough on crime" prosecutors and politicians (and the people who vote for them) for a large part of our current mess.

You weren't paying attention. Cornyn was a judicial system reformer in Texas as both a judge and as AG. Open government and fighting good ol' boy corruption were his beat.

By judicial system reform, I mean reducing the US's fetish for throwing too many people in jail for too-long sentences, which is what's relevant to the present case. I don't see any evidence that Cornyn did anything to reduce Texas prison populations or direct his office to stop intimidating defendants into accepting plea-bargains, or to stop seeking excessive sentences.

You guys are forgetting the most notable thing about John Cornyn: this unbelievable (real) ad that he ran for his campaign a couple years back. I give you... Big Bad John: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vcB7uCqdFk

This is worth watching so I will break etiquette to bring more attention to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vcB7uCqdFk

  "kept Texas in power, made lesser states squirm"

Seriously?

it's a Texas thing, you wouldn't understand.

Well I learned something from this discussion. Advocacy for Open Access is a new side project of mine, and now I know that Cornyn will be a strong ally.

It's well worth looking at the list of sponsors at the FRPAA Wikipedia link. Heck, I'll cut and paste -- it's a long list, but these people deserve recognition:

Senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman

In the House, Representatives Michael Doyle, Frederick Boucher, Michael Capuano, Jerry Costello, Bill Foster, Barney Frank, Gregg Harper, Paul Hodes, Tim Holden, Dennis Kucinich, Rick Larsen, Zoe Lofgren, Stephen Lynch, Dana Rohrabacher, Fortney Stark, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Henry Waxman

I only follow the politics of open access loosely, but my impression is that Lieberman has been a strong supporter since well before it was fashionable - well back into the 1990s.

I disagree with many of these people on many things, but I think this work is admirable, and worth supporting.

Edit: I notice that Senator Ron Wyden is missing from Wikipedia's list. Not sure what's up with that. He was definitely involved.

This is great information. Thanks. I bookmarked this post.

If you're interested in Open Access advocacy, I recommend following Peter Suber on Google Plus:

https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts

Suber is one of the world's leading advocates for open access to science.

For even more complete coverage, you can follow Suber's Open Access Tracking project. The project can be followed in several ways, including on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/oatp

John Cornyn and science get along great, as long as the science doesn't involve stem cell research (which he has casted Senate votes to ban) or climate change.

A discussion, let alone a democracy, cannot function if one requires everyone to agree with them on every sub-point of every item related to the topic of question.

I agree completely. I'm not suggesting that people can't applaud overtures towards open science or open access or an accountable DOJ. I'd just hope to maybe shape and direct the applause, so we're clear what its real target is.

I like Richard Posner, for instance, but I'm disquieted by how quickly the Reddit/HN crowd decided to lionize him once he came to a conclusion they liked regarding patents. Posner for SCOTUS! from people who understand the abstract from one case he worked on. Sheesh!

Where Cornyn stands on other issues is hardly relevant to the point at hand: Cornyn has a long-standing, deep-abiding interest in open access, an interest which is admirable, and certainly explains why he might have a genuine interest in the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

In politics, ignoring distasteful aspects of a person's politics in favor of a shared goal is called, "building a coalition."

Ban = not apply federal funds toward, right?

That would be correct.. And in related news, the Feds have banned me from cleaning the bathroom at home. Woot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com