Search News


Browse Archives

News

Stem Cells Meet Google

March 8, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, was in Washington on Tuesday to give a speech about forging relationships, both nationwide and internationally, within the current era of science and technological competition.

She stressed that more collaboration -- and open-mindedness -- is needed on specific issues that affect her institution (and higher education generally), including its stem cell research initiative and its collaboration with Google. And she implied that those who oppose those efforts threaten to stand in the way of societal progress.

“Disruptive technologies and new ideas can generate scary reactions and burdensome restrictions,” said Coleman, in her address at the National Press Club entitled “Not Your Father’s Space Race.” “Like the science of stem cells, the technology of digitizing books and making them searchable is generating resistance, to the point of litigation.”

Coleman said that despite all the excited talk about America's declining competitiveness internationally, she is not fearful of the global pressures that currently face universities, which she believes will ultimately help spur progress. She does, however, believe that contrarians within the U.S. are impeding the “social good.”

“Our national priorities are not necessarily shared priorities, as any observer of Congress -- or American culture, for that matter -- knows,” she said. “There’s not a whole lot we rally behind together as a society, except perhaps who should be the next ‘American Idol.’ ”

Holding up a copy of a recent USA Today, Coleman said, “I think it’s pretty telling when coverage of the Grammy Awards beats out a cover story on America’s tenuous position as a leader in science and technology.”

Colemen, a biochemist, said that it is the shared responsibility of educators to help people understand the science behind certain issues, like stem cell research. She said that she often encounters members of the general public who don’t understand the different functions of embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. With a little explanation, she said that she can sometimes convince skeptics that the benefits of embryonic cell research are immense.  

Regarding the Google book search project, through which the University of Michigan is among several universities allowing their library collections to be digitally reproduced by the search engine, Coleman said “we are protecting the written word for all time.” 

Critics of the plan have argued that Google unfairly puts a burden on copyright holders by forcing them to have to contact the company to “opt out” if they do not want their books included in the search database.

“Authors don’t hold all the rights,” Coleman said in response to a question after her speech. “The public has some rights, too. Ultimately, the courts will decide.”

On the international front, Coleman said she is pleased with academic collaboration between nations.  Noting a summer 2005 trip by a delegation from the University of Michigan to Beijing and Shanghai, she said, “We did not travel to China to check out the competition, but to find ways to work together with our colleagues.” Coleman added that the university will soon work with the Chinese to explore thousands of chemical compounds found in traditional Chinese herbal medicine. She said that University of Michigan researchers are also in the process of establishing a program in qualitative social science research with Peking University.

“Academe is known for saying, ‘publish or perish,’ ” said Coleman.  “I say, ‘partner or perish.’ ”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Stem Cells Meet Google

  • With All Due Respect - Missing the Point on Google
  • Posted by Rob Abel , Founder at Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness on March 8, 2006 at 8:25am EST
  • Better access to learning materials is certainly in the public good but Google profiting from it is another story. When publishers profit from learning materials they in theory end up reinvesting some of that in new materials - that is, the profit goes toward creating more learning materials (paying authors, etc.). When Google profits there is no positive financial benefit to the creative community.

    I also agree that partnering creatively to meet big challenges is a good idea. But there again it seems that Michigan, Stanford, etc. had an opportunity to set up this relationship so it is a win-win between the academic community and Google. One such idea would have been to ask Google to make this technology available commercial free to the education community. There are probably many others. Figure out a way to do this so the royalties come back to the educational community and creators of learning materials - not into Google's coffers.

  • Whoa, Dr. Coleman
  • Posted by R.A. Shaw on March 8, 2006 at 8:35am EST
  • As to this: “Authors don’t hold all the rights,” Coleman said. “The public has some rights, too. Ultimately, the courts will decide.”

    Dr. Coleman is a positive, pleasant person. As such -- I'm going to assume that when taken off-script --

    http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/060307npc.html

    she, like 99.99% of humanity, was less than 100% cogent.

    As to public domain materials filed 100% on Google -- no argument. In the public domain.

    But as to Google and U-M taking upon *themselves* to digitally-scan entire books (under copyright) -- when did God die, and appoint them judge and jury, on this issue? Is U-M looking for 9-0 SCOTUS decision?

    Even socialist milllionaires, who became millionaires thanks to copyright, are concerned about this issue. Dr. Coleman and her peers would be well-advised to stay in their areas of expertise, and let lawyers, judges, and legislatures deal with the legal issues.

  • Copyright Rights
  • Posted by Christine Valada, Esq. on March 8, 2006 at 11:35am EST
  • Dr. Coleman, like many who have lived the sheltered life of the Ivy Towers, doesn't know what it is like to bet her own future creating copyrights. Academics, supported by universities and grant money, routinely give away their copyrights--or xometimes perhaps more accurately, don't own their copyrights because their employers do. That's o.k. In exchange, they've got tenure and pensions and paychecks, something which I as a photographer and my husband, a very famous comic book writer, don't have. It's the royalties from licensing work during the term of copyright--either individually or by our publishers--which we need to function financially. The social good comes from our work being available for others to read or see and us being able to pay taxes, not from being ripped off or saddled with a a burden that the Copyright Act of 1976, as revised, does not impose. Google has the burden and they should shoulder it or they'll be meeting the lawyers from a number of organizations I applaud in court.

  • Balancing Act
  • Posted by Barbara Fister on March 8, 2006 at 11:50am EST
  • When Coleman says authors don't hold all the rights, the public has rights too - she's correct. The US Constitution give authors exclusive right to their work for a limited time. That monopoly ensures a healthy market for new forms of expression to provide their authors an incentive for creating them. But after that limited time the author's exclusive rights end. We can argue about how Congress interprets "limited time" and about fair use exemptions - and we will - but in general it's quite correct to say "authors don't hold all the rights."

    And of course in practice, a rare author holds all the rights anyway; they give publishers the exclusive right to publish their work, so the publisher has enormous investment in rights, too. (Even in cases in which the publisher doesn't assume copyright, which is quite standard in many academic publishing contracts).

  • How many angels are dancing on this pinhead?
  • Posted by R.A. Shaw on March 8, 2006 at 1:10pm EST
  • " .. but in general it’s quite correct to say “authors don’t hold all the rights.”

    Excuse me -- no one said, copyright in force for 100,000 years.

    We're talking about U-M and Google, taking it upon themselves to digitally-scan ENTIRE books CURRENTLY UNDER COPYRIGHT. And not stopping until threatened by lawyers from several trade groups.

    Perhaps I was incorrect about Dr. Coleman. Anyone thinking herself above the law -- e.g., Kennedy and his driving, Cheney and his hunting -- ought to be brought up short. No one is above the law -- not even Google.

  • Legality
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on March 8, 2006 at 2:15pm EST
  • The legality of Google's move is in hot debate among legal scholars - the matter has hardly been decided. Too many people have declared that Google is acting above the law as though the matter has already been adjudicated and settled - it has not.

  • I've taken your car
  • Posted by R.A. Shaw on March 9, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • Young Mr. Kevin:

    When you start producing written materials that you are paid thousands of dollars for (under copyright) and someone unilaterally decides to digitally-copy your materials WITHOUT asking you, much less compensating you -- check back with us.

    Until then -- keep studying.