FoI for WB7 peer review.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

FoI for WB7 peer review.

Postby chrismb » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:55 am

Let's make something quite plain - the peer review on the <=WB7 work that lead to funding for WB8 was an independent work of EMC2 and paid for by the Navy. The peer review is owned by the Navy. If it is not owned by the Navy, then it wasn't an independent peer review!

I think the Navy is right to ask EMC2 if the peer review contains proprietary material, but I think EMC2 is wrong for saying that there is. The arguments here are that they own this, but they do not else it was not independent.

The FoI for the peer review may differ to FoI for other aspects of information. The peer review should have been released at a minimum, and I see no proprietary issues arising that could not have been reasonably redacted.

There is a legal obligation on the Navy to release this, unless they claim critical national interests, but they didn't and were reported as being willing to release it.

"We achieved the necessary well depth with a new ion gun configuration consisting of XXXXXXXXXXXXXredactedXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and this produceed a well depth of 1keV", or whatever.....

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Postby rcain » Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:08 pm

i agree with you. but you will not win. not now at least.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Re: FoI for WB7 peer review.

Postby BenTC » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:31 pm

chrismb wrote:Let's make something quite plain - the peer review on the <=WB7 work that lead to funding for WB8 was an independent work of EMC2 and paid for by the Navy. The peer review is owned by the Navy. If it is not owned by the Navy, then it wasn't an independent peer review!

I think the Navy is right to ask EMC2 if the peer review contains proprietary material, but I think EMC2 is wrong for saying that there is. The arguments here are that they own this, but they do not else it was not independent.


You appear to be saying "The peer review report cannot be independent if it contains proprietary information." On that, I have to disagree. To highlight this by way of a contrived and extreme example...

To be eligible for certain government subsidised medicine, the government requires an independent review of your bathing and toiletry habits. I am contracted by the government to come into your house to observe you in the act and write report for them. Now you have no control over what I write, so it is an independent review - but you do happen to get your medicine subsidised. Now even though the government owns the report, and you are now publically funded, the government has no right to release the description of your bowel movements beyond those immediately involved in approving your subsidy. Certainly, the general public don't get a look in.

All I am saying is that the peer review report can still be independent while containing proprietary information.


Similiarly with photography, I can take any photo of you I like, and I own the copyright on it. However you retain rights preventing me from using that photo in advertising products. In general, the owner of a thing is not necessarily free to do anything they like with it.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: FoI for WB7 peer review.

Postby chrismb » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:50 pm

BenTC wrote:You appear to be saying "The peer review report cannot be independent if it contains proprietary information."
I do not see how you arrived at that conclusion!?

I am saying that the peer review is owned by the Navy and they may need to redact proprietary parts if there are such, but it is their document to sent out, suitably redacted.

The previous claims here about the FoI have, recently, been about the material being owned by EMC2 and therefore not subjet to FoI. I am just clarifying here that the peer review is the Bavy's and is therefore, quite definitely, subject fo FoI.

There may be proprietary information in the peer review, that much I have said myself, but the T-P comments about not being able to apply an FoI on a corporation are bogus, with respect to the peer review.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:08 pm

One of the FOIA paths did specifically target the peer review. The navy gave EMC2 a cut on release, they cited proprietary, thus no release.
It was also spelled out in the FOIA addendums requesting that any specific proprietary get redacted, and it was chosen to be a blanket. This is the basis for a successful appeal, as I was informed by legal council.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:23 am

Seems reasonable, go for the appeal.

The Navy peer review document does not belong to EMC2, some material contained within in it may be of a proprietary nature, but a blanket statement 'it all belongs to EMC2" is clearly dishonest and someone needs to call them on it.

What else will they try to achieve in a dishonest manner if they get away with this? has to be the follow up question.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:50 pm

icarus wrote:Seems reasonable, go for the appeal.

The Navy peer review document does not belong to EMC2, some material contained within in it may be of a proprietary nature, but a blanket statement 'it all belongs to EMC2" is clearly dishonest and someone needs to call them on it.

What else will they try to achieve in a dishonest manner if they get away with this? has to be the follow up question.
What's dishonest? There is proprietary information with no compelling reason at this time to separate out the non-proprietary information from the proprietary. I suspect you already know this (it' simple) so it's your characterization which is not so up to snuff.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:58 am

What's dishonest?


I thought I was quite clear. The blanket statement that the whole WB-7 peer review report is "proprietary" is dishonest.

As chrismb argues, if the whole report belongs to EMC2 it cannot be an independent report but a paid-for rubber-stamp job. If EMC2 did commission the peer review report and pay the Navy to perform it them perhaps it belongs to them, but this does not appear to be the case. The report was commissioned by the Navy so belongs to them, and by proxy the taxpayer so the whole report cannot possibly be "proprietary", that is a dishonest statement, regardless of the legalese that may be blustered up around it.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:43 am

I'd not go so far to say 'dishonest'. I think EMC2 has dreamed up some perverse incentives under which it is currently functioning, but I would put this down to poor aforethought and disproportionate self-interest/self-agrandisement.

I think it is difficult to argue that self-interest and ignorance add up to the same as dishonesty - though some political schools of thought may appear to draw equivalence between those things!

Aero
Posts: 1198
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:32 pm

chrismb wrote:I'd not go so far to say 'dishonest'. I think EMC2 has dreamed up some perverse incentives under which it is currently functioning, but I would put this down to poor aforethought and disproportionate self-interest/self-agrandisement.

I think it is difficult to argue that self-interest and ignorance add up to the same as dishonesty - though some political schools of thought may appear to draw equivalence between those things!


You can call it 'dishonest,' or 'self-interest and ignorance,' but don't dare call it 'not-nice' or you'll get verbally sh** upon by, well, ypu'll find out.
Aero

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:43 pm

chrismb wrote:I'd not go so far to say 'dishonest'. I think EMC2 has dreamed up some perverse incentives under which it is currently functioning, but I would put this down to poor aforethought and disproportionate self-interest/self-agrandisement.
You seem not to understand Navy R&D funding at all. This is not something that EMC2 dreamed up, perverse or otherwise. This is standard business practice for technically oriented business in the US.

Indeed, one rather large business recently made a tsunami when it announced that it was going to place much of it's proprietary system design info into the public sector (similar to the "open source" model) and seek to earn its money thru service contracts.

This is nearly unheard of except in the software business and seldom heard of there amoung government contracts.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:49 pm

Aero wrote: You can call it 'dishonest,' or 'self-interest and ignorance,' but don't dare call it 'not-nice' or you'll get verbally sh** upon by, well, ypu'll find out.
Poor Aero. :cry: He feels "sh** upon" by my little morality play. So sad. WAAAAAA! :cry: :cry:

He seems inable to read anything written in first person as anything except for "personal" when it is a well established method to expound a general message. Perhaps he is so vein he thinks everything is about "him" and not a simple lesson.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:41 pm

KitemanSA wrote:You seem not to understand Navy R&D funding at all. This is not something that EMC2 dreamed up, perverse or otherwise. This is standard business practice for technically oriented business in the US.
That may or may not be the case, but does that make it right? It also sounds rather like state support for private business which [I thought] was a no-no under various trade agreements? That's why I said I think it sounds more like communism, because the creation of 'technology institutions' acting *within* the madate of the government is exactly how they do is as well.

I did feel the US was back-sliding towards socialism. I guess if this has been going on for a long time, as may be implied from what you are saying, that the US technology industry was merely 'ahead of its time'!!

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:22 pm

Chris, if USG were able to sign an NDA they would have. Instead, they're merely protecting proprietary information. EMC2 has a right to keep anything they like secret. They're in a trade, and that's how the world works.

My plumber is just the same way. I had a faucet that wouldn't stop running. I looked at it. I've done copper plumbing before but it looked to me the whole wall needed to come part so I called a tradesman. he looked at it and replaced the cartridge inside the faucet in 5 minutes. I didn't know those things have replaceable cartridges! Why didn't I know?

Because that's a trade secret that keeps plumbers employed. They have a right to keep certain kinds of info to themselves because their livelihood is predicated upon this. That's what the notion of "trade secret" is all about, even when, as in the case of a plumber; the secret is not all that secret.

EMC2 has every right to keep EVERYTHING they do secret, no matter who writes them a grant. There's nothing socialist, nor communist, nor draconian, nor dastardly about this.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Aero
Posts: 1198
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Postby Aero » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:59 pm

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:You seem not to understand Navy R&D funding at all. This is not something that EMC2 dreamed up, perverse or otherwise. This is standard business practice for technically oriented business in the US.
That may or may not be the case, but does that make it right? It also sounds rather like state support for private business which [I thought] was a no-no under various trade agreements? That's why I said I think it sounds more like communism, because the creation of 'technology institutions' acting *within* the madate of the government is exactly how they do is as well.

I did feel the US was back-sliding towards socialism. I guess if this has been going on for a long time, as may be implied from what you are saying, that the US technology industry was merely 'ahead of its time'!!

See ? There are a few beltway bandits on here who think that the more the government is ripped, the more they will get away with, at least that seems to be the thrust of the argument. Nothing directed at the topic of the thread, just posts calling you ignorant, calculated to misdirect and de-rail the thread to avoid facing the subject. Probably due to a guilty conscience or maybe the insidious poisoning of the beltway banditry has him believing that business as practiced there is the way it is done across the country. In that he is wrong but as he refuses to address the topic of the thread, he will never learn.
For those who don't remember (and are still reading) the topic of the thread is:
Let's make something quite plain - the peer review on the <=WB7 work that lead to funding for WB8 was an independent work of EMC2 and paid for by the Navy. The peer review is owned by the Navy. If it is not owned by the Navy, then it wasn't an independent peer review!

And for some reason KitemanSA does not want us to look at this to closely.
Aero


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests