Dear SekeRob, John C MacAlister, lawrencehardin, and others,
yes, it is always a balancing act between making one's research available to interested parties and at the same time respecting the interests of the (unfortunately for-profit) journals we publish in. But these days there are fair-use agreements and we are sure we'll find a way to make our results accessible to you guys.
Best wishes
Your Harvard CEP team

We'll definitely keep you posted

Hi, Aaron: I have sent this note to the administrators of malariacontrol.net i Switzerland:

Hi, Nick:

Many thanks for the June report. I have remarked in other forums that, being a simple retired accountant, my understanding of the scientific and medical issues are necessarily limited. However, I greatly appreciate the fact that certain published work acknowledges the contribution we volunteers make to humanitarian research. I am not looking for thanks, but having spent a not inconsiderable amount on two computers dedicated to research, I like to see my contribution acknowledged. Your June report provided my needed confirmation of the utility of volunteer input to malaria research.

Thanks, again!

John

please visit the page http://boinc.berkeley.eduwiki/Publications_by_BOINC_projects#malariacontrol.net
There you will find reference to published papers acknowledging the contribution of volunteer crunchers.

Regards,

John

Hi everybody,
once the papers are published we'll also provide a less technical 'digest' version. Here are a few teasers: we find that it is indeed very hard to create high-performance materials for plastic solar cells. Only 0.3% of the screened molecular motifs have the right energy level alignment which is necessary for a power conversion efficiency of 10% and higher (according to a model developed by Scharber et al. in 2006). This underlines the value of of our large scale study, since common, low-throughput investigations have a hard time finding the few good approaches. CEP2 even identified a number of candidates right at the upper theoretical limit of the Scharber model, i.e., concrete molecules which are an ideal match to the formulated requirements! We could also show that our candidate library covers a wide range of electronic and optical properties necessary for specifically tailored materials, e.g., for new architectures such as hybrid and tandem cells. In other words, CEP2 allows us to provide candidates with a specific set of properties on demand. We have also started learning about structure-property relationships, but more about that later.
Hope that gives you a first impression of our successes with CEP2 so far.
Best wishes
Your Harvard CEP team

Just to be clear here, you talk about publishing the papers in "For-Profit" journals. But the actual results, the different materials and such. Those go into the Public Domain, where they can never be patented. There is no way to stop anyone, anywhere from using these results for an end product for absolutely free. Is this correct?