Talk:PubChem

CAS vs. PubChem

I removed the highly controversial statement that PubChem violates the governmental mandate of not competing with the industry, since NCBI's mandate has always been to effectively compete with the industry, only on the basis of providing a free service as opposed to fee-based. It's only after they expanded into an area dominated by a consolidated, lobbying business, that they ran into a problem.

For further discussion of this statement, we'll probably need a legal opinion on just how the federal low on government non-competition is to be interpreted with respect to NCBI. --Azazello 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Template

FYI, I was about to create a template to link into the database, when I found that one already existed. For an example of its use, {{PubChem|5665}} is rendered as CID 5665 from PubChem. --Arcadian 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

a strange emphasis

a/The argument between the NIH and CAS was a significent and well-publicised development for both chem and biomed, and there is a good deal of relevant mateial from which a NPOV treatment can be given. In fact thiis is a particularly favorable instance to do NPOV on an IP controversy, because the arguments ar unusually well-balanced. It would not be the least controversal to say CAS claims that PubChem violates the governmental mandate of not competing with the industry, infringes their intellectual property rights . etc etc. while the NIH etc that it's originally built with their money, provides a non-overlapping function etc. etc. I do not think the matter has ever been resolved, but I'll check. I will do it when I have chance. (without quoting my own 2 cents).
b/ the detail presented on using the database is relatively extensive, especially since it's a free db and anyone can go right to the NCBI instructions, and they should before using it the first few times.
Perhaps it would be enough to list the searchable fields, without the abbreviations. I don;t think there's anything approaching this detail on other db pages; certainly not on Chemical Abstract or WebofScience or pubmed. IdeallDGG 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)y it should be done with someone who uses it frequently--I don't.

Problems with "Problems with Industry Concerns with Pub Chem" Section

The focus of this section appears to be the American Chemical Society not Pub Chem. It also appears that the content was copied from the American Chemical Society wiki from Sourcewatch.com. I think that it has some POV issues as well. M stone 14:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean sourcewatch.org, for this Sourcewatch. Their ACS page is here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemical_Society --Kkmurray 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)