Privatizing = secrecy. Here's another example of the real meaning of privatizing: socialized cost underwrites private profit, and, of course, access limited to those with the ability to pay. Call this "country club science."

Research libraries are likely to continue carrying print copies of general-interest journals, such as Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine. And a few powerful institutions--among them the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Francisco--have insisted on "walk-up" clauses in their contracts that allow any patron full access to their online journals at workstations within the library. But they are the exception; as a rule, Silverman says, publishers insist that their online journals remain "protected" from the general public.

Pressured by a boycott among some high-profile scientists in 2001, certain journals began offering free public access to back issues a year or more after publication. But most charge high per-view fees for recent articles.

The restrictive tactics have enabled publishers to squeeze more dollars from their subscribers. But the restrictions may turn out to be a strategic error, as the industry faces a backlash on several fronts. In June, Minnesota Representative Martin Sabo introduced a bill, the Public Access to Science Act, that would forbid publishers from claiming copyright on "scientific work substantially funded by the federal government"--a large fraction of basic and medical research. "It defies logic to collectively pay for our medical research only to privatize its profitability and availability," Sabo argues.

John Doe warrants. As soon as a path around constitutional rights is blazed, so it will become a convenient "highway to hell" for government prosecutors -- only traveled, of course, to better protect us from ourselves, don't you know.

Small-minded nation. Exceptionalism, all right, but forall the wrong reasons.