Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa, and Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-Commerce, is agitating for a national open-source network for all civil servants, including  City workers and academics.

Although Geist is addressing all civil servants he tends to save his harshest criticisms for the university and its industries. He points out in the linked interview that, “At the moment, we’ve got what strikes me as a ridiculous proposition where we fund the research and then spend thousands of dollars to purchase that research within our own institutions, and the public isn’t even granted broad access to it.”

He is among many others in Canada calling for an open-source repository where researchers, after publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals, would make it publicly accessible. John Willinsky, who directs the Public Knowledge Project at the University of British Columbia, is also a strong advocate of open-source, connecting it to a healthier public domain and political culture. Willinksy expands on these ideas in an excellent article where he highlights the convergence of open source, open access, and open science: underpinning these "open" movements is a shared understanding of freedom based on collective knowledge and mutual aid. Willinsky also touches on the relationship between the "information commons" and place-based political struggles, as well as providing a good introduction to "open" movements more generally.

The Philadelphia Consensus Statement proposes three major changes to university policies on health-related innovations. Universities should:

• Promote equal access to research.
• Promote research and development for neglected diseases.
• Measure research success according to impact on human welfare.

These changes could literally save millions of lives.

http://consensus.essentialmedicine.org/

CALL TO ACTION from ARTHUR MANUEL

I've attached the call to action here. But I wanted to highlight a particular distinction the call makes between Indigenous demands and what government policy pushes:

COLLECTIVE LAND BASE: Our peoples collectively made decisions and cared for the land, it is inalienable. We have the right to control our territories.

versus

FEE SIMPLE: If a group signs a treaty, the “treaty lands” are returned as fee simple lands—held like settler property that can be seized, forfeited and sold to settlers.