“Serres critiques the classical logic of identity as based on a ‘third man’ argument. This third space – personified as the parasite – is essential to thinking communication and transformation in systems. Parasitism operates through the logic of taking without giving or ‘abuse value’. But the parasite nevertheless makes exchange possible by creating connections between otherwise incommensurable forms of ordering.”

Steven D. Brown. In praise of the parasite: the dark organizational theory of Michel Serres
http://www.seer.ufrgs.br/InfEducTeoriaPratica/article/view/36928

http://xenopraxis.net/readings/serres_parasite.pdf

As academics, how precarious and temporarily our jobs may be, we get paid to disseminate our knowledge. I wouldn’t see why we want additional money for it if it is essentially about summarising our previous findings. Institutions such as DFID, the UN, etc. are, moreover, paid from the same tax money we are paid from. They are not necessarily profit-making machines. And even in the case of commercial enterprises it may be fine to share some of our insights with them. As stated in the article, our thoughts may help to shape the thinking and policies; hence, with our expert knowledge, for which we have already been paid, we may be able to influence beyond our traditional outlets of peer-reviewed journals. Of course, you may refrain from this, Though, as said, I would this on moral rather monetary grounds.

The issue with a monetary argument is that it may be difficult to draw the line of what is parasitic or not. Newspapers are also sold for a profit, so why provide any information to journalists? The academic publishing companies running the journals publishing our peer-reviewed articles are certainly parasitic. And not just with a few lines, but by publishing our research in its full length; at least, the associate referred to still puts some of her/his own work and analysis in the report. But does this stop us, or the author, from publishing in peer-reviewed journals? And aren’t we, as anthropologists, somewhat parasitic ourselves? After all, we have a job because we do research and we can do research because we rely on the pro bono time of our informants. These informants could argue, ‘hey, you have a job because of me, so why don’t you pay me for the time I spend with you’.

I am supportive of Judith’s discussion on what we do with our knowledge and against what (moral) price. Some of my examples may be farfetched, but I think we have to be careful before we put a price tag on research we have essentially already been paid for.