*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****

It's business model is stated to be NPO -but it is incorporated. The profit can be paid to the originators in the form of executive remuneration to zero the accounts. Until it gets sold… There is no difference between this and (say) Facebook that I can see. 

Cheers

On 29/01/2013, at 8:52 AM, Peng Xi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> *****
> 
> Change will take place -- whether you deny or embrace it. This time, in
> research ID and the way we publish.
> Like many people don't like the idea of cell phone -- they regard this more
> like a leash to kill your freedom, the beauty of connecting people (with a
> phone number) is there. Of course, you don't have to remeber a series of
> numbers; you still call people John Smith.
> If we have accepted Linkedin and ResearchGate, both run by for profit
> companies (well I am not so sure about ResearchGate), then why do we deny a
> NPO? :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Peng Xi
> Ph. D.    Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering
> Peking University, Beijing, China
> Tel: +86 10-6276 7155
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://bme.pku.edu.cn/~xipeng
> 
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Mark Cannell <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> *****
>> 
>> Dear Group
>> 
>> This message is really spamming. Let us be quite clear ORCID Inc. has
>> cleverly hoodwinked you and others to providing it information of
>> commercial value as well as placing cookies on your computer. The benefits
>> or needs of a unique researcher ID are unclear and frankly I don't like the
>> idea of reducing human identities to a number. I will boycott this service
>> and advise everyone else to do the same.
>> 
>> There is already research gate and linked in and this is just another
>> company exploiting our good will for dubious benefit.
>> 
>> My 2c.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 29/01/2013, at 2:25 AM, George McNamara <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> *****
>>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>>> *****
>>> 
>>> Dear Confocal Listserv,
>>> 
>>> The January 3, 2013 Nature has two editorials of interest. the first is
>> on ORCID:
>>> 
>>> http://www.orcid.org/
>>> 
>>> "And here is where last year's launch of the Open Researcher and
>> Contributor ID (ORCID) facility is to be welcomed. The core function of
>> ORCID --- a community collaboration (see go.nature.com/sy3qnp) --- is to
>> assign every researcher a number and a web page, thereby providing a unique
>> identifier and so disambiguation. The web page enables the researcher to
>> record their contributions: papers they have published and --- a facility
>> to come --- their research grants and patents. Nature journals authors can
>> link their ORCID to their account in our manuscript submission and tracking
>> system, and we will soon be publishing authors' ORCIDs in papers. (Readers
>> can register for ORCID here: https://orcid.org/register; see also Nature
>> 485, 564; 2012.) ... That is why Nature and the Nature journals have
>> introduced two ways in which referees can be given credit. Any referee who,
>> in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the journals
>> will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free
>> subscription to their choice of one of the journals."
>>> 
>>> My ORCID is 0000-0003-4155-0976
>>> 
>>> I will add my ORCID to my NIH Biosketch. I already crosslinked my ORCID
>> page with my linkedin profile   www.linkedin.com/in/georgemcnamara
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ***
>>> 
>>> The second - likely more important! - is on lab safety:
>>> 
>>> "one-third of scientists say that safety is more important to them than
>> it is to their colleagues, with only  2% voting the other way. Although
>> most respondents say that their labs are safe places to work, they
>> simultaneously report behaviour, such as frequent lone working, that seems
>> to belie that confidence ...  almost half the respondents reported being
>> injured in the lab"
>>> 
>>> Which reminds me: "Do not look at laser with remaining eye!".
>>> 
>>> Happy 2013,
>>> 
>>> George
>>> 
>>> p.s. I don't know if this web links to the Nature Editorial will work
>> for everyone (good luck)
>>> 
>>> http://www.nature.com/news/in-search-of-credit-1.12117
>>> 
>>> 
>> http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.12117!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/493005a.pdf
>> 
>> Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
>> Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
>> School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
>> Medical Sciences Building
>> University of Bristol
>> Bristol
>> BS8 1TD UK
>> 
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 

Mark  B. Cannell Ph.D. FRSNZ
Professor of Cardiac Cell Biology
School of Physiology&  Pharmacology
Medical Sciences Building
University of Bristol
Bristol
BS8 1TD UK

[log in to unmask]