Elaboration 71

Copyrights and certainly our stigmatisatory systems of science, not to forget the 'payola', the business characteristics of science and of the printing of science, it is all the very death sentence for all progress, all decent scientific discussion. Nowadays, scientifical workers are judged upon by their 'bosses' for the number of publications they have produced (per year). When it is too meagre, they face dismissal (too little applause for them, too little applause thus for their professors). It is an incentive to fake experiments, bungle data, plagiarism, etc. This world too, has to be changed. Science should be gratis, publication automatic when it is worth so for progress. Publication, in order to satisfy a professor, hence, triviality, should become impossible. It is, of course, at the cost of the whole world-population (paper = forest). Publication only, when it is 'new', valuable progress, and then, if necessary, at the state's expense. How many, or rather, what few, of the piles of dissertations, by which people graduate every year, mean something for progress (science) ? And then, those for 'promotions'. Should it not be so that promotion MEANS a donation to progress, i.e. valuable, read, studied, after publication? Why should it not be possible for a totally unknown person, a free-lance student-expert, to submit a paper which would be examined on ITS merites and give to a scientific status?