durability etc

From
Date
Heinz Hilbrecht has missed my point -- my argument was not that electronic 
media may be less durable than paper, but that one needs additional 
technology to make it readable at all. I once heard a radio program about 
industrial archaeologoists who were called in to find a way of retrieving 
magnetic data accumulated during the Apollo space missions. The data was 
archived in good order, but the machines required to read the data had been 
junked long ago. Paper poses no such problems -- I can go into the UCLA rare 
book room and read stuff written down 500 years ago with no technology other 
than my own eyes: yet access to material recorded in our own lifetimes is 
effectively denied us, simply because of technology. I stress that I do NOT 
want to be thought a technophobe -- I like computers and rely on them for my 
daily work -- but we must not be so caught up in the wonder of technology 
that we ignore the possible problems that may crop up down the line.

Stefan Bengtson makes a persuasive plea for the creation of a cadre of 
professional editors. Well, obviously, I'm all for it! But it is hard to see 
where the money would come from. Publishers won't stump up the funds as long 
as scientists are prepared to do the job on their own time (Nature is a rare 
exception -- but for the publishers, Macmillans, being prepared to stand a 
10-year loss in the 1870s, it would probably not be here today). Societies 
might do it (after all, many societies employ professional archivists and 
administrators). University presses are probably the best bet. However, 
Stefan raises a more general point -- how does it happen that so little 
appreciation is given of the time spent by editors (and time is money) is 
scientific publication is so important to scientific progress? Beats me.
Henry Gee
henrygee@ess.ucla.edu